Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genevieve Pou


 * 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 Leaving aside the philanthropist/TV/celeb stuff, notability is certainly demonstrated as an author: she had 7 novels published in hardcover by Doubleday. DS (talk) 06:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Genevieve Pou
Subject does not seem to meet the requirements of WP:BIO, but the article attempts to establish notability so it's not really speedy-able. LaMenta3 (talk) 22:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - if the claims about her can be sourced; well known philanthropist, television appearances, celebrity status, then this should meet notability standards. Mostlyharmless (talk) 03:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, but so far, the sources provided (which I did come across a couple of these during a quickie search but didn't add, as I didn't see the point) don't really establish notability as per WP:BIO, or if they do to an extent, don't satisfy WP:RS. While the claims about her are certainly interesting, as she wrote crime/mystery novels for women during an era when the genre was both dominated by and targeted to men, I've found nothing that shows that there was any greater social/cultural significance or impact that came directly from her novels, or even if her novels sold all that well or if she's won an award. The latter I would think would have been mentioned in one of the obituary-type sources if she had. I'm not hellbent on getting this article deleted; I came across it through the AfD for her husband's article (Charles D. Pou), which was created by the same editor, but I honestly can't find the sources to back it up. LaMenta3 (talk) 05:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep, the sources provide some grounds for notability, it's not a clear decision though. Does anyone know how well her books sold? Terraxos (talk) 04:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * KEEP -- this is an author who was a major local presence in Atlanta and is honored by her alma mater, the University of Mississippi. This article should never, ever have even been considered for deletion.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dkendr (talk • contribs) 13:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Having been honored by one's alma mater doesn't necessarily confer notability (plenty of people are honored by their schools but aren't notable enough for Wikipedia), though at least there is a reference for this point. However, I've found nothing that demonstrates her as a "major local presence," as you say. I'd be particularly impressed by sources confirming the statements about her philanthropy or any cultural influence she had locally or on a larger scale. LaMenta3 (talk) 18:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Given that Wikipedia contains articles for just about everyone who's ever put on a pair of shoes in the NFL without complaint, I can't understand your reasoning behind deleting this article. Either you're from another part of the country and don't care who was prominent elsewhere, or you're just an officious nit who is looking for something to do with his copious downtime.  You have not at all provided a compelling argument for deletion of this article other than its linkage to a skimpy article, itself labelled as a stub.  The only argument put forth for deleting it is that you don't think she was famous enough, as if your opinion was the only one that mattered.dkendr
 * My reasoning is not that she's "not famous enough" but that there do not appear to be reliable sources which back up the claims that would make her notable under Wikipedia's notability guidelines. I should also remind you that you should remain civil in your discussions here and not take it personally if someone nominates an article you created for deletion. I am all for preserving information if it can be shown that there is a strong likelihood that sources exist to back up claims of notability that satisfy Wikipedia's guidelines. I have looked for evidence of this and have not yet found any that I feel fulfill Wikipedia's guidelines. If you or anyone else can produce some to my satisfaction, I'll be more than happy to withdraw the nomination. LaMenta3 (talk) 05:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the votes in this thread show that there is adequate proof for anyone else who has looked; I think you are clinging to your deletion nomination for purely egotistical reasons, and that your nomination of this article was improper in and of itself. Don't act like you're doing favors by not altering the record, either.


 * Keep. Seems to have more than just local notability: the New York Times has reviewed at least three of her books. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * These appear to be brief "blurb" reviews that occurred in a regular feature that reviewed several crime/mystery novels at a time, which really isn't significant enough coverage, and is still about the books more so than her (though that may be splitting hairs; I'm not really sure). I think we're getting somewhere, though, as I didn't find these while I was searching for references. LaMenta3 (talk) 18:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Who appointed you guardian of Wikipedia purity? Since you are finding more evidence to keep, I think you need to back off your position. dkendr  —Preceding comment was added at 02:40, 11 January 2008 (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.