Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arda Vandella Collins


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 07:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Arda Vandella Collins

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Was prodded with the reason "Unable to ascertain notability for the book re WP:BK, and thereby rendering the authors claim for notability invalid per WP:CREATIVE". One editor's inability to determine notability is not sufficient reason for a prod. PRODding of articles should only happen in cases where a deletion would be uncontroversial. When you fail to determine something yourself, the best course of action is to ask for help. "When in doubt, don't delete". I'm moving it here for wider community consensus and remain neutral until I've looked at it in detail myself. Mgm|(talk) 09:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Does not meet notability guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep respected author and educator and recipient of the "Who's Who Among America's Teachers" award. Based upon the available sources toward notability, I'll accept in good faith that she is in that book. The article and wiki will benefir from expansion and further sourcing.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 20:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Appears that this author has not been given any editorial coverage. See Google news archive search (all dates), Google search, and what appears to be her most well-received work at amazon.com. The last is particularly telling, as amazon will put just about anything approaching a reliable source in its Editorial Reviews section. Citation in virtually any sort of "Who's Who" in the past 30 years is not evidence of anything&mdash;the inclusion criteria include requesting inclusion, generally. Bongo  matic  22:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * *Strangely, Google is not the ONLY search engine available to Wikipedians. And just to clarify, more than simply being "listed", she is the recipient of an award from "Who's Who Among America's Teachers". Not just a listing, but an award and recognition in her special field of endeavour.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * MQS, you wrote:
 * Strangely, Google is not the ONLY search engine available to Wikipedians.
 * Your sarcasm is not appreciated. While Google is not the only search engine, it is generally regarded as the single most comprehensive (free) one. Doing all-dates news archive search plus a web search indicates sufficient good faith so as not to be the target of snide remarks.
 * You continued:
 * [M]ore than simply being "listed", she is the recipient of an award from "Who's Who Among America's Teachers". Not just a listing, but an award.
 * The source of this&mdash;a promotional blurb&mdash;is hardly reliable. And if actually read the text in the source, it appears that it is no more than a listing (people do not receive a notable "award" multiple years in a row, and it refers to "appear"ing as the consequence of the award):
 * In 2003-2004, Mrs. Collins was the recipient of the "Who's Who Among America's Teachers" award and appears in the 8th edition. She was again nominated for this award and will appear in the 9th edition as well.
 * If you have a source (even a non-reliable one) that leads to a different inference, please share it. Bongo  matic  00:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * ??? No need to continue a debate you've already won. I struck my keep at 23:27 (see below) and 1 hour and 24 minutes later at 0:51 you cut apart my coment to reply piece-mill. I have re-stiched the pieces, as what I said and how I said it is something that does not itself require editing simply to accomodate your responses. And no sarcasm was intended, just a reminder inre your earlier sourcing remark to say I understand that Wikipedia recognizes that Google has limitations and is not the only search engine available. Wiki lists a few of the many online engines, and gladly accepts hardcopy sources such as public libraries (where that Who's Who Among America's Teachers can be found and her award verified).  I should have said just that and not allowed for any misinterpretation.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 02:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, no matter how much good faith I can muster, there is no way to interpret a "Strangely" before a blindingly obvious statement as other than sarcastic. Bongo  matic  02:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, it's not because Who's Who Among America's Teachers is not online that I question the likelihood of the subject's being granted an "award", it's because the claim itself (which is in a promotional context) and the nature of the book (which can be established here, for example) lead to the presumption of a directory entry. If a Wikipedia editor claimed to have read the book and identified that the "award" was bona fide it would be a different matter. Nobody is (or at least I am not) suggesting that print sources that are not online are inadmissible. Bongo  matic  02:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete without prejudice and allow return when this great-grandmother gets her obit in New York Times. Striking my keep above.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Leaving discussion per Irony, Sportsmanship, Eristic.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 06:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete once more with feeling kids... if no reliable sources independent of the subject discuss the subject in any non-trivial depth, then no encyclopedia article.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Bali ultimate words it well. لenna  vecia  15:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 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.