Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gini Graham Scott


 * 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.  Sandstein  09:10, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Gini Graham Scott

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable person. No coverage in independent reliable sources; gets a lot of Google hits, but that's in part due to her being quoted in a couple of human-interest pieces about something else (ie. not actually coverage of her that satisfies WP:BIO) and mostly due to the fact that she has dozens of websites. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 04:06, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Keep: I'm sorry, but did you even read the article? This is an obviously notable person. She has authored over 40 books, some sites quote 50. The publishers include McGraw-Hill, Prentice Hall, New Falcon, Ronin, Random House, Brick House, Berkley, Kensington and other reputable publishers. She had a radio show with a million listeners. She has been featured on internationally-renown talk shows including Oprah Winfrey, O'Reilly Factor, Good Morning America and Montel Williams; THEY found her to be notable. After the first couple of hundred Google hits, you get dozens and dozens of book reviews. Barnes & Noble's website lists 114 hits; Borders gives her 79. I don't know what problem you have with her, but for this and other reasons stated in the article, she is obviously notable. Rosencomet (talk) 11:23, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Writing books doesn't make you notable - coverage in reliable sources makes you notable. (In passing, I also don't see any evidence that she was ever on these shows.) I don't know what book reviews you're referring to, because eight pages in, I'm still getting her own personal websites - she seems to have about fifty. She's clearly non-notable, and I'm starting to doubt again that you really are unaffiliated with her. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 12:04, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Anyone can write books; getting over 40 books published DOES IMO make you notable, especially by reputable publishers. You have to go further than 8 pages to find the reviews, but they're there. Your prejudice about the number of professional - not personal - websites she has is inconsequential. And you'd better have some evidence to back up your accusation that I have lied about not being affiliated with her, or take it back. I wrote the article after reading Shamanism for Everyone; that's all the connection I have ever had. Here are a few reviews I found:   And here's a video showing brief clips from some of the shows she has appeared on. Do some research before making accusations. Rosencomet (talk) 13:41, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The fact that you believe Typepad blogs and user-generated Goodreads reviews constitute reliable sources is yet further evidence that you are not familiar with Wikipedia's notability guidelines, though this was evident enough when you claimed that sheer volume of books published made someone notable. "Anyone can write books" is exactly the point, and that doesn't change whether there are two, forty, or a hundred of them, if they're not notable. The video you linked, which is a promotional video from the subject of the article, includes clips of the shows that are less than a second long and include no sound. In what capacity did she appear? Was she actually featured, or did we get a five-second quote from her about the actual topic of the show? (Ie. she may have been on them, but a clip half a second long does nothing to establish notability, and it would still be better in any case to be able to link the actual episode instead of a promotional video by the subject with a clip that does nothing more than show her in a box next to Bill O'Reilly.) We just don't know, because we don't have any reliable, independent sources. This lack is exactly what makes her non-notable. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 01:21, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I find the tone of your response to be offensive, especially as you haven't supported your accusation that I am affiliated with the subject. I've been editing for several years, and understand the requirements. The article stated that Scott had appeared on those shows; she is obviously being interviewed on them, not sitting in the audience. I haven't the ability to post the entire episodes, and they should not be necessary to support the simple statement in the article. You are setting the bar way to high IMO. You are splitting hairs, and when presented with supportive data you reject it and demand the unnecessary. You also don't seem to understand the difference between notoriety and notability. Being in the news a lot need not make you notable in an encyclopedic sense; you might have been a victim of a sensational accident, which doesn't make you yourself notable. However, if you are an author, certainly getting multiple books published by non-vanity presses supports your notability just as NOT getting published in spite of writing books (which is what makes you an author in the first place) would contradict notability. You simply ignore the issue of the prestige of the publishers and claim I ascribed notability simply to number of books, just as you ignored the proof that Scott appeared on the shows she said she did and demanded to see the entire show. You seem to have a problem with Scott because of the number of websites she has, which should be irrelevant, and have not in THIS venue taken back your accusation that she was using Wikipedia to promote herself, even though there is NO EVIDENCE that she EVER inputted a single word to the article. Rosencomet (talk) 17:11, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If you believe that churning out books makes someone notable, why don't you try to have it added to the notability guidelines, instead of trying to apply your own personal notability criteria when existing criteria explicitly require coverage in reliable sources? Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 22:37, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  — I, Jethrobot drop me a line 19:01, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  — I, Jethrobot drop me a line 19:02, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep -- pretty clear from GNews search above that she's sufficiently notable for an article.-- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:55, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No, that isn't clear at all. As I said in my deletion rationale, a quotation from Scott in an article on bad bosses is not coverage of Scott that attests notability. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 01:21, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you really going to jump in after each editor who says KEEP and gives a reason and say "No, its not"? Can't we keep this civil? Rosencomet (talk) 17:29, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * AfD is a discussion, not a vote. Misguided criticism of my conduct in daring to respond to another user is not a substitute for a demonstration of notability according to established guidelines. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 22:37, 3 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Fails WP:Prof with a GS h index of 8. Can this BLP pass WP:GNG despite spammy nature of the article? I think not as the media references are so trivial. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:54, 2 July 2011 (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) 00:46, 9 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - This is a tough call. Some of her works have been published by major publishers.  Yet the WP:Author guideline requires that her work be the subject of "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" (that is the most germane qualification of several listed in WP:Author ) - and I don't think her works quite rise to that level.  On the other hand, her name is mentioned in passing by several major sources including CNN, although few (none?) actually devote a full review to her individually.  This could go either way. --Noleander (talk) 02:20, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Satisfies WP:AUTHOR as her books are the subject of "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews", e.g. Pburka (talk) 21:07, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep--the sources found by User:Pburka satisfy WP:AUTHOR. Meelar (talk) 23:39, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Satisfies WP:AUTHOR  Th e S te ve   09:36, 11 July 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.