Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cathi Unsworth


 * 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. Consensus at this time is to keep ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 15:50, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Cathi Unsworth

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

I can find no independent, reliable sources for this person. Nothing that would establish notability seems to be available on line. The subject's own website doesn't count  Tigerboy1966   20:50, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 13:09, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Did you find no independent, reliable sources when clicking on the word "news" in the links spoon-fed by the nomination process? It's a good idea to look at the preview before saving a deletion nomination. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:25, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Did that, they all seem to be either UG content, trivial mentions, 404's or behind paywalls: no in-depth coverage of the subject. This is my first nomnation for AfD so I might have missed something, but I know that a ton of gnews hits doesn't equate to notability if the quality isn't there. As always I would be happy to be proved wrong.  Tigerboy1966  21:17, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 27 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. I think the 3:am source can be counted as reliable - though some of its content seems to be user-submitted, Andrew Stevens is a professional journalist and has written for the Guardian. a I also found this source from Le nouvel Observatour (|en&u=http://bibliobs.nouvelobs.com/humeurs-noires/20120502.OBS7856/le-livre-est-cher.html Google translation) which mentions her a bit. I'd be happier to recommend keeping if there were more sources, but there seems to be just enough available to warrant keeping the page. I agree with Tigerboy that most of the Google News and Book hits don't count towards notability (although being behind a paywall is not a good reason to disregard a source). — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 15:57, 27 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. SwisterTwister   talk  00:50, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. Unsworth is a fairly well-known writer, and there's plenty of coverage around:, , , , , . --Michig (talk) 07:14, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. There is plenty of coverage, but my problem was with quality, not quantity. Looks like we are heading for a keep anyway.  Tigerboy1966   07:38, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. In a twist to my earlier comment, I have just found out that Cathi Unsworth is also a Guardian contributor, so the 3am source might fail the independence test. This is made up for by the other sources, though, in my opinion. Kudos to Michig for finding the Mirror and the Metro sources - it seems my Google-fu needs some polishing. (How did you find them, by the way? Was it just through a regular Google search?) All in all, I think that while the sourcing isn't the best here, there is just about enough there for us to keep the article. — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 12:09, 4 June 2012 (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.