Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kathryn Hamm


 * 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. The article as it stands is really bad and a poor testament to alleged notability, which the discussion here failed to unambiguously assert. If it is recreated, it should be a lot more rigorous. Shii (tock) 04:09, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Kathryn Hamm

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Nonnotable author. No independent sources cited in article (just author's own sites). NawlinWiki (talk) 18:58, 4 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:GNG Fiddle   Faddle  20:26, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 21:39, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 21:39, 4 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR #3 multiple reviews. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 06:03, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:14, 11 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Her only book is in just 4 libraries according to WorldCat. It appears to be self-published: "Authentic Weddings" has published this book and nothing else. The refs all seem to be straight PR. the ones listed in the body of the article are her own site. The ones at the bottom, #1 is so promotional it mentions her name (or--for some reason I do not understand-- her mothers name--in almost every paragraph; #2 almost identical, and the fact that GoodMorning America produced it doesn't make it less so; #3 similar; #4 unreliable source for a book review; #5 seems straightforward advertising; #6  $7 . This illustrates the weakness of GNG--that news sources carry an article shows the persistence of the pr agent, not the notability. News sources minus accomplishments is not notability. the same sources, if there were any accomplishments, could be seen differently.  The only objective measure, the success of her book, is what can be relied on.  DGG ( talk ) 14:34, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree with this rationale: There is nothing in the notability guidelines about library holdings, libraries are not always a viable metric of notability. Nor is there a problem with self-published books, there are many very successful and notable books that are self published. As for the refs being "PR", I disagree, these are legitimate reliable sources. Her notability is clearly laid out in the sources, she is a pioneer and leader in the field of gay weddings. GNG is not "weak", and the "success of her book" is not how we determine notability otherwise every book on the NYT bestseller list would be notable, and we don't do that. Notability is measured by how much press coverage a book gets and this one has at least twelve reliable sources, far more than most that show up at AfD. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:27, 16 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:00, 19 September 2013 (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.