Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbara Traub


 * 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 keep. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 07:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Barbara Traub

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

No claims of notability, seems like an ad for her books, nothing but a CV. Corvus cornix 04:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment As is, just short of speedy-eligible (G11). There are potential sources for even a stub, though, including some reviews of her book. --Dhartung | Talk 04:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Tepid keep for now: This is a bizarre nomination. No claims of notability, says Corvus, who yet appears to concede in the same sentence that the subject has created books, plural. Now, I don't think every book is necessarily of any significance (I think of the wasting of forests on astrology, "self-help" and suchlike drivel), but the very start of this admittedly ghastly article links to (or if you prefer advertises) this page about her book. The book isn't one that I'd immediately want to buy (not that this should be an issue), but the description does say (after my addition of links): Introduction: Les Blank. Foreword and Afterword: Larry Harvey. Epilogue: Lawrence Ferlinghetti. Contribution: Leonard Nimoy. So even if the book's of little or no interest to you or me, it does seem to be noteworthy. Ergo, its creator has some notability. Yes, the article is indeed wretched. The creator of the article is new; let's not rush to WP:BITE. -- Hoary 04:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * One is not notable merely for having written books. They must have some sort of third party sources noting that the books have some sort of notability of their own.  Corvus cornix 23:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, true. That a book has bits added by Blank and Ferlinghetti, as well as the increasingly renowned photographer Nimoy, makes it stand out from the pack. Is it reviewed? Well, the "Burning Man" is such a big thing in the blogosphere (yawn) that it's hard for me to use Google quickly to see if it's reviewed or remarked upon anywhere significant. I do note that it gets a page at Johns Hopkins: admittedly just a signing session at the/a campus bookstore, but again not the kind of thing that (I hope!) is accorded to books like The Seven Secrets of Women from Venus and Men from Uranus Who Moved My Cheese. -- Hoary 23:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Hesitant keep: This article needs to be seriously cleaned up - but I think that the subject is notable.  Bradybd 04:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for the feedback -- changes have been made. ... added at 05:46, 30 May 2007 by User:Gamble07
 * More changes are needed. Please either provide evidence for the assertions marked as needing evidence, or delete those assertions. -- Hoary 23:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep as the article is still a bit of a mess but works as an article now, and notability seems sufficiently clear. --Dhartung | Talk 10:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep agree with dhartung, it is a bit of a mess... but notability seems established.  ALKIVAR &trade; &#x2622; 01:56, 5 June 2007 (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.