Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kasey Edwards


 * 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. (non-admin closure) &mdash; kikichugirl  oh hello! 05:47, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Kasey Edwards

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I couldn't establish that she meets WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 06:50, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

In response to the proposed deletion:

• The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.

Edwards and her books have been the feature of multiple periodical articles or reviews. For example: http://www.independent.ie/life/family/mothers-babies/fertility-born-in-the-nick-of-time-26744865.html and http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1369338/What-you-told-just-year-left-conceive.html

Both of Edwards' books have been included in the collection of the National Library of Australia: http://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/4497629 and http://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/4976783 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbscanlon (talk • contribs) 04:19, 12 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbscanlon (talk • contribs)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 23:46, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * I have no opinion on this article or its success/failure in meeting Wikipedia inclusion guidelines, but think that inclusion in the NLA catalogue is not a claim for notability. As the national library, a copy of every work published in Australia is legally required to be submitted to the NLA (see Legal deposit). -- saberwyn 05:09, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, N ORTH A MERICA 1000 01:09, 20 March 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, N ORTH A MERICA 1000 01:38, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - Not notable in the slightest, Fails GNG. – Davey 2010 Talk 02:56, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete per WP:ONEEVENT. The stories in the Independent and Daily Mail are primarily about her and satisfy our reliable sources guideline (okay, the Daily Mail only just), but they're both essentially about the one topic.  Agree with User:Saberwyn above that merely being included in the NLA catalogue is not an indicator of any notability as self-publishing a pamphlet will essentially get you there.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:28, 30 March 2015 (UTC).
 * keep leaving aside the irony in the fact that this self-absorbed Aussie first came to wide attention by writing a book (I added some of the press, profiles that the book - Published by Random House - generated to the page)  about how she quit the rat race because wanted to leave career ambition behind, then further furthered her ambitious career by wrote another another that also garnered attention, and now appears ot be so determined ot leave ambition behind that she has written her own Wikipedia page.  As I said, leaving all that behind, it does appear that she has garnered sufficient attention with her job-quitting and books to pass WP:GNG - with articles in the British, New Zealand, and Canadian as well as Australian press, moreover she keeps herself in the public eye by being a columnist.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:32, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets WP:AUTHOR. - RobBertholf (talk) 16:45, 3 April 2015 (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.