Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joyce Farrell


 * 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   no consensus.  MBisanz  talk 13:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Joyce Farrell

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Notability not asserted. Article was originally nominated for speedy delete, but that was denied by another editor. Farrell is a former college instructor who now works for a private instructional facility (Cengage), and the page was authored by, representing possible spam, and definite conflict of interest. Author's extensive writings appear to be basically instructional media created for Cengage. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:39, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - fails WP:PROF and no independent reliable sources to establish notability.--Boffob (talk) 18:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Non-notable Hazel77 talk 19:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delet not notable at all.  abf  /talk to me/  22:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.   —David Eppstein (talk) 04:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Cengage is not a minor company--its a major educational publisher, one of the largest: recent reorgnization/split of part of the Thomson-Gale publishing conglomerate, which will publish educational and reference material from the former publishing imprints:Brooks/Cole, Course Technology, Delmar,  Gale, Heinle, Schirmer, South-Western,   Wadsworth and Houghton-Mifflin College Division,, all well known in the respective areas, andabout 650 smaller imprints, once most of them independent ocmpanies, some important in their fields. . To say something is educational material created for Cengage is as significant as to say its a reference book for Gale, or a health science college text from Wadsworth, or a undergraduate text from Brooks/Cole, or a research level reference database by Gale --all of them major professional and academic imprints. The name is unfamiliar, but thats a combination of publishers buying parts of each other and decisions to adopt new brand names that nobody recognizes. Now, some of what Cengage does is fairly low level, including the production ofc ustomized textbooks for individual instructors, but this can not be assumed.   We need to look at what she actually wrote.

As far as I can see these are widely used undergraduate textbooks. There are three of them present in over 200 US libraries; most have gone into as many as 8 multiple editions. The standard for WP:PROF accepts writing of widely used textbooks as notability, and she qualifies here. Given the reluctance of libaries to buy rapidly changing undergraduate texts, holdings as wide as these show widespread use. I consider this a careless nomination, without any attempt to see what the publisher actually was, or to check the actual books. COI is cause for looking carefully, but not for deletion. As for the PR guy who did the article, I'll advise him appropriately to him to try to prevent his messing up this way again. Perhaps he knows some reviews he can add to further show the notability. DGG (talk) 07:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per DGG. I agree completely with his remarks on COI. --Crusio (talk) 08:04, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. As noted by DGG, passes WP:PROF criterion #4, note 12 (books that are widely used as textbooks (or as a basis for a course) at multiple institutions of higher education). For example, see the results of s search for syllabi listing her books.--Eric Yurken (talk) 17:19, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per DGG and Eric Yurken's comments above, based on criterion 4 of WP:PROF. Needs clean-up, though. Nsk92 (talk) 20:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.   -- Raven1977 (talk) 05:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete non-notable. --T*85 (talk) 05:56, 18 November 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.