Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bonnie Pemberton

I have restored the AFD to the text at the time of closing. It should be noted that the socking block against Inniverse was later reversed, and the suspected relationship to Azviz has been determined not to exist.&mdash;Kww(talk) 23:09, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * 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   no consensus. Stifle (talk) 09:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Due to the socking causing confusion to the debate, there is no prejudice against speedy renomination. Stifle (talk) 14:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Bonnie Pemberton

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Contested prod. I can find no evidence that the subject of this article satisfies the principal criterion of WP:BIO ("significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject") or the specific criteria of WP:AUTHOR. Of the references it contains, the first two are not independent, and the other two are different copies of the same list of recipients of a nonnotable award—the Cat Writers of America Certificate of Excellence. Of the book reviews listed, the first one might scrape by; but the next two are in blogs, and the final one is a nonsubstantive entry in a library's list of books about cats. I'm finding nothing reliable and substantive about this person herself. Deor (talk) 13:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Keep - This author is notable per WP:AUTHOR as the creator of a independently reviewed and award-winning book. "The Cat Master" novel is generally notable because if verifiably meets through reliable sources the criteria found at WP:NBOOK, which is that the book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This article meets the minimum requirements for inclusion and that is all that it needs to be kept. Inniverse (talk) 14:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  —Deor (talk) 13:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as original PROD nominator. The individual does not meet any of the criteria outlined at WP:AUTHOR, and the lack of any idependent coverage shows she fails WP:BIO as well. --Jezebel's Ponyo shhh 14:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Where in WP:AUTHOR do you see the criteria you've listed above? There are 5 points listed, none of which state "the creator of an independently reviewed and award-winning book". In addition, I don't believe that the Cat Writer's of America Certificate can be described as notable/significant award in the world of literature. If you want to make an argument for the book itself being notable, then an article on the book needs to be created. The author herself does not meet WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR. Jezebel's Ponyo shhh 14:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * #3 - The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work (I was paraphrasing). Inniverse (talk) 04:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, by paraphrasing you changed the meaning. The full sentence states "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." That certainly does not apply in this instance. Unless it's your contention that the single book she wrote is "significant/well-known" and bookstore reviews are "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews"? --Jezebel's Ponyo shhh 13:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The below listed multiple book reviews (already listed in the article) are all independent from the author, and only the last of these four reviews is sourced to a bookstore (as a "staff pick review):
 * Felinexpress.com
 * A Year of Reading
 * St. Charles Public Library
 * Powell’s Books: Staff Pick Inniverse (talk) 14:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I see a cat wesite, a blog, a library and a bookstore. That is a very large stretch to assert that those reviews are notable in any way. Your unconventional views on notability criteria are apparent from your talk page. I note that you also duplicated the Bonnie Pemberton at The Cat Master (which is also up for deletion). Given you have only been editing under this account for a few days, something tells me this isn't your first kick at the Wikipedia can. Jezebel's Ponyo shhh 15:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: This is the kind of article where the pure absurdity of it all makes me laugh.  Its not harming anything, but the "Cat Writers' Association" award?  "Bonnie Pemberton wrote 'The Cat Master' to remember her real cat, Buddy, who had died; and to make it about her other cats, Zekki, Cookie and Pouncho (Cookie had her named changed to Pris for the book and I guess Pouncho is Jett). When Bonnie wrote the book she stopped for two years after Buddy died finally publishing it in 2007."  Its hard to square this article with prevailing notability standards, sadly.--Milowent (talk) 17:03, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep, surprisingly enough. I was on the fence after reading the AFD - there didn't seem to be strong evidence of notability - but then I found this source, which I think tips it into 'keep':. Taking the sources covering the author and the book together, she has received significant coverage from multiple independent reliable sources, if only just. (I don't see the need for separate articles on the book and the author, though - we should only keep one and redirect the other, and I'd say this is the one to keep.) Robofish (talk) 21:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:BIO says, "Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject." An interview on a cat Web site is a primary source. Deor (talk) 18:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No it isn't. It is a source that is independent from the subject. Inniverse (talk) 18:49, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It's the subject of the article talking about herself. That makes it a primary source. See footnote 2 in WP:PRIMARY, which explicitly mentions interviews. Deor (talk) 22:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you are mistaken. It is the source in which the interview is published that makes it independent. If the author self-publishes her own interview then that would not be independent, but if her interview is published in a source that is independent of the author herself, then that supports a claim of notability. Every one talks about themselves, but only if you are notable will an independent source publish what you are saying. Inniverse (talk) 04:05, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * weak keep we have seen a decent start here. Needs work not deletion. Not against nominating this again if I am wrong. Shooterwalker (talk) 06:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: Inniverse blocked as sock of Azviz.&mdash;Kww(talk) 16:49, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Google news shows as a valid news source, and it did an interview on her.   D r e a m Focus  03:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The book may be notable, but there does not appear to be enough significant coverage to validate a biography. Perhaps the article can be renamed and the content of the article can be reformatted into an article about the book she authored.-- Pink Bull  02:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * See Articles for deletion/The Cat Master. Deor (talk) 08:24, 10 June 2010 (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.