Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Celeste West


 * 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. (non-admin closure)  HurricaneFan 25  00:19, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Celeste West

 * – ( View AfD View log )

nON-NOTABLE author. doesn't even have 50K google results, and none of her books are even hit many on google. Fails WP:AUTHOR easily. Cowback23451 (talk) 20:05, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Considering that she has had a book written about her, I don't think she fails WP:AUTHOR as easily as you say.  Nolelover   Talk · Contribs  20:14, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The three authors of that book have 35,000, 7 (exactly), and 17,000 google hits respectively. That leads me to think that the book about her isn't very notable itself. So while I admit there's more coverage of her than I thought, I still don't think she's notable. Cowback23451 (talk) 20:19, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you're putting too much emphasis on g-hits. Whether or not the authors of a book used as a source are notable in and of themselves is almost entirely irrelevant. No, the book may not be notable enough for its own article, but it does seem to satisfy the "subject of an independent book" part of WP:AUTHOR. Whether or not that's enough is still to be decided.  Nolelover   Talk · Contribs  20:23, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. My point was simply that the book isn't enough to establish Notability. The google hits were simply an explanation of why not. And keep in mind, not all those google hits were about the book. Cowback23451 (talk) 20:29, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Clearly a notable author/activist. The article needs responsible and competent editing, not deletion. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 13:12, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Multiple books in hundreds of libraries WorldCat Authorities, including a German translation of one of them. Ghits in the thousands being used as an argument for keeping is a classic bad invalid; ghits in the 10s of thousands being used as an argument for deleting is even more absurd. We just don't work that way. We look at the actual sources. Personally, btw, I do not think that any one of the books individually is suitable for an article--even if they technically meet the guidelines, it's still better practice to discuss them in a combination article.   DGG ( talk ) 04:43, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per DGG! Askadaleia (talk) 09:13, 28 November 2011 (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.