Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karen Fredricks


 * 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   delete. Theoretical notability based on a number of major publications isn't enough when the article is fundamentally unsourceable. ~ mazca  talk 12:29, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Karen Fredricks

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Autobiography without any third party sources. Has authored a number of books, but I don't see any indication that they have received much attention. Leivick (talk) 20:12, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * weak keep. The number of books listed at World Cat Identities and the fact that they are published by a reputable publisher is a positive indication of notability. Being specialist Dummies guides, they are unlikely to attract much in the way of mainstream reviews. There may well be reviews in the specialist press. More problematical for me is that the article has been written by the subject and has a promotional tone.  I would suggest stubifying and keeping but I can't say I feel strongly about it. I have just tagged for the computing Project.  Perhaps someone over there might take an interest--Plad2 (talk) 19:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep' - author of a dozen how-to guides in a popular series. Bearian (talk) 01:20, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Second relist rationale. The article is an unsourced BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The number of books i9n a major series from a major publisher is notability enough. I removed the advertising for her and her company.    DGG ( talk ) 01:01, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete No third-party sources, only authored a few books of notability, she is not notable as an author and has not received any acclamation or praise for her works.  Fridae&#39;§ Doom  &#124;  Talk to me  23:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 'Delete This is an unsourced BLP. This requires sources. Since there appear to be none this must be deleted as BLP is a policy and trumps AUTHOR. Spartaz Humbug! 05:19, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete all articles must be supported by independent, reliable sources of which there are currently none in the article, nor have any been mentioned in this discussion. The 'Keep' "votes" above argue that she is notable based on her writing even in the absence of sources covering her.  In another context it may make sense to use such heuristics as firm notability rules, but given that the article is a BLP I can't see keeping it in the absence of sources.  Eluchil404 (talk) 09:04, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - fails WP:BIO, and we can't keep a BLP without sources. Claritas § 09:51, 10 July 2010 (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.