Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rima Morrell (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rima Morrell

May not meet the inclusion criteria for academics or authors. Not well referenced for verifiability. Some RS coverage but probably not enough to prove notability. A previous article was deleted at AfD. This is not the same text. DanielRigal (talk) 23:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 03:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 03:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The Daily Record source would seem to be substantially about the subject, and another source has been given in the article (Tooth and Claw). There is also this review in MBR Bookwatch, which, apparently, is a "monthly publication of book reviews for community and academic library systems in California, Wisconsin, and the Midwest". It's not much but taken together these sources would seem to just about satisfy notability criteria. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The MBR review is only a one paragraph. You can read it in full here: http://www.midwestbookreview.com/mbw/nov_05.htm (scroll down or search the page for "huna"). Mid West Book Review seems to be an organisation that will cheerfully give almost any book a chance of a very short review, even self-published material. The reviews are written by volunteers. See http://www.midwestbookreview.com/get_rev.htm and http://www.midwestbookreview.com/revinfo.htm. It is a perfectly reasonable undertaking and I certainly don't think that it is a PR/advertising service but I don't see it as a source that confers any degree of notability either. It seems to be comparable to a blog or a Wiki.

The Daily Record review is a full size article, although it seems to come from a glossy lifestyle supplement rather than the main body of the paper. There is a scan of it here: http://www.hunalight.com/images/tm.pdf .

--DanielRigal (talk) 17:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't have any evidence of meeting WP:ACADEMIC or WP:BIO, more specifically the guidelines for authors. Almost anyone can write a book or two and have someone else write about it these days; this alone doesn't make an author notable. NZ forever (talk) 02:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no evidence of notability and seems website links only promote her businesses —Preceding unsigned comment added by RSchmidt66 (talk • contribs) 13:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be the first signed-in edit of this editor. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I can find no trace of her on Google Scholar and fellowship of the Royal Geographical Society is not an elected honour. However, her books have respectable sales rankings in Amazon.co.uk: Travelling Magically: How to Turn Your Journey into a Life-changing Experience 65,682[1]; The Sacred Power of Huna 139,183[2]; The Hawaiian Oracle 253,165[3], and have received a couple of independent reviews per Phil Bridger. The Hawaiian Oracle has been translated into French according to the author's website.[4] I think taken as a whole, this meets the guidelines for creative professionals, and the Daily Record article alone is sufficient for verifiability. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete no notable accomplishment in any one thing. Incidentally, I do not accept the simple use of Amazon ranks any more than of Google hits-- they can be used for comparing books of the same genre and intended readership and language and country of publication and year of publication, but not as an absolute measure. Translations are a sign of notability, but the single book here is marginal that way. DGG (talk) 21:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Could not find enough to establish notability under WP:PROF. Does not seem to pass WP:BIO either. Bestselling general interest books would normally attract more media coverage than suggested by this search.--Eric Yurken (talk) 01:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--International notability established by The Guardian and a book review by Planete Quebec. --Jmundo (talk) 05:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.