Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cheryl Kaye Tardif


 * 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. - Mailer Diablo 23:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Cheryl Kaye Tardif
Vanity article and non-notable subject matter &larr; Σc o  Phreek &rarr; 22:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 *  Holdon  I am willing to hold off until the article can be reviewed and the arthor worked with to improve more if needed.
 * Keep The author has addressed my concerns, the article is now a decent article I believe. &larr; Σc o  Phreek &rarr; 19:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 *  Delete  Unencyclopedic entry for non-notable consisting of little more than copy-and-paste from the author's personal website. Books issued by vanity publisher. --Victoriagirl 22:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep: No longer in violation of NPOV. Recommend a clean-up following WP:MOS (in particular WP:MOSBIO and WP:MOS-T).Victoriagirl 18:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete books with Trafford on-demand publishing service    Dl yo ns 493   Ta lk  00:07, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Do NOT DELETE. This page has been edited and amended, compared with other author pages on Wiki and anything that could be construed as advertising has been removed. All quotes have been sourced. Removing references to books published by Trafford or ANY company, whether self-published or not, is completely biased and unreasonable. This author's books are available in bookstores and online through Amazon, B&N etc, and she is traditionally published as well in book form and in newspapers and magazines. (Cherylktardif 19:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC))
 * Delete or serious re-write Noted that deletion is opposed by subject/author. Article asserts notability enough, but Written by the subject and her #1 fan, falls foul of WP:AUTO. Written in a style and containing speculative (future) events, Definitely WP:VAIN.Her job/company is to publicise authors. Wiki is not a vehicle for marketing publicty. Ohconfucius 16:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. This article was written by the author and someone who offered to help on Wikipedia. Her #1 fan did not have anything to do with writing or editing it and has never appeared on Wikipedia in any way. Please give examples of 'speculative future events', Ohconfucious. If you are referring to the screenplay; it is well-documented on outside sources that a screenplay went to a leading film producer for consideration as a possible movie. If you're referring to unpublished or upcoming releases, they were referenced from the author's site and books, Stephen King's page has a lengthy list of unpublished work referenced from a book. And thank you for noting that I oppose the deletion. I've worked very hard on cleaning up this article, and yes, I do promote other authors on 2 websites, not on Wiki.(Cherylktardif 19:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC))
 * maintain delete It's not personal. most of the effort has clearly come from you by your own admission, I suggest you moved it to your own talk page Ohconfucius 02:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment Just noticed it's copyvio from  Dl yo ns 493   Ta lk  16:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, Ms. Tardif should be advised that Wikipedia's neutrality policy forbids writing about yourself on here, except to correct factual errors. But at the same time, she's certainly notable enough, IMO; I don't even read mystery novels and I've heard of her. Cleanup anything that's too much of a POV and/or copyvio issue, but keep. Bearcat 09:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Bearcat, Dlyons493, I don't think CP is a great issue here. You can't plagiarise yourself. Ohconfucius


 * Keep per Bearcat. --YUL89YYZ 10:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The article has again been re-edited, citations have been added and upcoming releases have been deleted. (Cherylktardif 17:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC))

Comment: I've twice changed my opinion as to whether there should be an article on Ms Tardif. Those who care to visit my talk page will see that I was initially in favour, but then changed my mind. The good work of a variety of people has led me to believe that an article on Ms Tardif is indeed warranted. That said, my vote to delete still stands as I find this particular article continues to include elements of self-promotion. For example, her 2004 nomination for the Lieutenant Governor of Alberta Arts Award sounds impressive, but a visit to the website tells us that "Any Albertan or Alberta-based organization may nominate a person for a Lieutenant Governor of Alberta Arts Award". I very much doubt an impartial observer would have thought such a nomination worthy of mention. Had she made the short-list, as had Douglas Cardinal and John Murrell, among others, I would think differently. Furthermore, several claims made in the article, as it stands, are unverifiable. That Ms Tardif "graduated with Highest Honors" from a correspondence school is just one example. I must add that I assume good faith, and see these two examples as nothing more than typical problems associated with autobiographical entries as discussed in WP:AUTO. Again, I recognize that a great effort has been made to bring the article into line with Wikipedia policies, but I can't in good conscience say that it is there (yet). Victoriagirl 17:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Any award or nomination for award is worthy of mentioning. That's why authors mention shortlisted titles and nominations. There are many that are open to nominations from their province. How do you think people GET nominated? Also, shortlisted and nominated is the basically the same thing in the writing field and holds the same status--every professional writer knows that. And in both cases, someone (other than the writer) has to believe that person is worthy of being nominated. I was nominated by a fan of my first novel. She emailed me AFTER she nominated me. This nomination is for excellence in the arts in my province and is highly respected; it is better than being shortlisted for almost any contest, which only judges 1 work. Victoriagirl, you cannot possibly expect every statement to be backed up by a citation. That is impossible, for any writer. And it would mean that a large % of the content here on Wikipedia is unverified. I DID graduate with Highest Honors. Call ICS. That is how it can be verified. They do not release that information in a book or on the internet. Victoriagirl's requests for changes have gone from warranted (which I've addressed) to picky and on to ridiculous. And initially VG was not in favor of my article because it was far different than it is now and she flagged it as advertising.(Cherylktardif 23:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC))
 * Risking further accusations that I am being picky or ridiculous, I offer following. A nomination is not the same as being short-listed, though the two terms are often used interchangeably (and I will admit my own guilt in this matter). To use one example, nominating a book for the Giller requires nothing more than submitting the book along with a cheque to the organization - a process covered in Stephen Henighan's When Words Deny the World (Erin, Ont.: Porcupine's Quill, 2002). Thus, it is the short-list that receives attention, not the rather long list of nominees. So, I must disagree that each and every award nomination is worthy of mention. In the specific case of the Lieutenant Governor of Alberta Arts Award, the bar is so low as to make the mere nomination not worthy of note. As I stated previously, a nomination may be placed by any Albertan or Alberta-based organization. The criteria the nominee must meet is also quite loose in that he or she must be “a Canadian citizen; a person whose achievement or contribution has benefited the arts in Alberta; A resident of Alberta or, if not now a resident, someone who has had a significant connection to the province over time; be willing to accept the award.”  While I won’t speculate as to the number of nominees generated by such a process, I can’t help but note that the awards website doesn’t provide a list.
 * Concerning verifiability, while I don’t expect every statement to be backed up by a citation, I do believe that “Information on Wikipedia must be reliable and verifiable. Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources. Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed.” These are not my words – these are Wikipedia’s policies as laid out in WP:VERIFY. Assuming good will, I don’t doubt for a moment that Ms Tardif graduated with Highest Honors from the correspondence school. I was using this claim as typical of the problems associated with autobiographical entries. It is an assertion that simply cannot be verified.
 * One final point, it is stated above that I was initially not in favour of an entry dealing with Ms Tardif. Anyone who cares to investigate will see that this isn’t true. My first - and only - edit to the article was the placement of an advert tag; quite obviously I was asking tat the article be cleaned up, rather than deleted. A visitor to my talk page will see that in my first discussion on the issue I was in favour of a Wikipedia article on Ms Tardif. In fact, I am still in favour, but cannot vote for this particular article.Victoriagirl 04:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Delete: rather ho-hum - not quite encyclopaedia-worthy. Please note that claiming 'highest honors' (whatever they may be) from a correspondence school is only liable to render you subject to discreet sniggering from readers.
 * Keep the exciting new novel published by --Cloveious 15:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * comment Note that CKT seems to be making a serious effort in tidying up her bio. Sorry to learn about her brother, but that fact does not increase notability one jot (unless she was somehow involved- I jest). The existence of her books can be verified easily enough, and I'm on the cusp of reconsidering my vote based on the rewrites. However, those quotes from reviewers and the planned future events still bug me. They remind me of one-line quotes you see on back covers to entice would-be readers, so not entirely NPOV yet. Ohconfucius 08:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The quote from The Edmonton Examiner irritates in that it does nothing to inform the work - unlike, say, that from Robert Thacker in the Alice Munro entry. What's more the sentence it is found in ("Whale Song is "A wise, enchanting story..." said The Edmonton Examiner, and it explores topics such as amnesia and suicide.") is badly coonstructed and confusing. Is it The Edmonton Examiner that says the novel explores topics such as amnesia and suicide, or is this a description provided by the entry writer? That said, I'm not so convinced that it goes against NPOV. I must disagree on the issue of future events. A visit to the Kunati website indicates that the book is indeed plannned for publication. Though this event is roughly half a year away, it is not that different than mentioning the forthcoming September publication of Alice Munro's new book.Victoriagirl 14:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment As far as I can see, all Ms Tardif's books are self published. Also as far as I can see, Kunati Book Publishers have not published any books  - they are a startup who hope to publish some next January.  So until they publish her book this is crystal ball.  Dl yo ns 493   Ta lk
 * Comment: I'm ashamed to realize that Kunati have yet to publish their first book - I'd thought that their Spring catalogue dealt with last season. No wonder I'd never heard of them! Until they are on their feet and have proven themselves it would probably be best to delete references to the 2007 edition of Whale Song. At this point, they are untested and their reliability is unknown - stark contrast with Munro's publisher, which celebrates its centennary this year.Victoriagirl 18:00, 11 August 2006 (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.