Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kim Chestney


 * 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. Several editors have searched but failed to find enough sources to establish notability to Wikipedia standard. JohnCD (talk) 12:24, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Kim Chestney

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable writer-artist with a couple of friends in bands. Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  00:25, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

An author who has published a book with Random House, part of the library of congress, published in three different languages with readership across the globe should not be considered "non-notable." Akia Cherstine  &#x007C;   Talk  12:05, 15 November 2009 (UTC) — AkiaCherstine (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * reply Why not? If the subject fails our standards of notability, having a book in the LoC doesn't exempt them. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  23:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * reply Multiple publishings in itself, by huge publishing houses, implies notability. There is no way around that. Several different media sources spent thousands of dollars to publish this person's ideas. Note: "Within Wikipedia, notability determines whether a topic merits its own article. Article topics are required to be notable, or "worthy of notice." Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things like fame, importance, or the popularity of a topic." You, yourself, may not consider this "notable" but obviously others do. --AkiaCherstine (talk) 01:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC) — AkiaCherstine (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Just got online with this. Content is clear and shows notability. No deletion.KCH111609 (talk) 17:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC) — KCH111609 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete. Fluffy article for a non-notable author. Google News gives us a few mentions in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, but none of them seem to offer much significant discussion of the topic. Google Books delivers only the books by this "intuitive." No notability, no WP article. Drmies (talk) 01:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest adding more details about the books content. --AkiaCherstine (talk) 01:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC) — AkiaCherstine (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Well, I would suggest that too, and seeing as how you are the article's main contributor, perhaps you should take your advice to heart. If I would have found anything worth mentioning, I would have added it, thank you very much. See below for Phantom Steve's results. Drmies (talk) 01:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete following a search for sources. Google Scholar has 2 hits, one of which is her own book; the other is a one-sentence quote from her; Google Books has 4 hits: 2 are her books, the other is the one quoted in Scholar with the one-sentence quote from her, the other is "Deutsche Nationalbibliografie: Amtsblatt‎" - which woudl presumably have a basic entry; Google News has no hits; Google News Archive has 5 hits - all short paragraphs. No significant coverage found. Google Search shows either books shops' listing her books, or her own sites (web, twitter, facebook, etc). --  Phantom Steve  ( Contact Me, My Contribs ) 01:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per Drmies. I scoured Google News but couldn't find anything beyond a few bare mentions pushing the book in local media.  If significant published reviews of the book, or articles focusing on Chestney specifically exist, I encourage AkiaCherstine to add them and I'll take another look.  I know its frustrating when an article that a new author creates gets put on the chopping block, because many new authors learn the hard way that their personal favorite author, friend, band, etc., may not pass wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion.  For example, 1/2 the music i own is probably from bands with no chance of having a wikipedia page, even if it is the best music ever recorded.--Milowent (talk) 02:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Milowent, 1/2 is probably an understatement--you know you listen to trash. But if you need some NOTABLE music, I have a Creepmime CD here for you. Only been played once, and only halfway through. Drmies (talk) 05:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That looks promising, as my current favorite Pebbly Mammogram was not notable.--Milowent (talk) 21:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Right, then. Thanks to those of you who took the time to look into this -- that would be everyone with the exception of Drmies...I am not sure who lets you participate in Wikipedia, but your input is unprofessional, at best. OAO.--AkiaCherstine (talk) 19:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC) — AkiaCherstine (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * AkiaCherstine, I'm going to comment on your statement: Drmies did look for sources of information, if you read what they typed. As for "who lets you participate in Wikipedia" - this is a volunteer project. Drmies is a volunteer who has been with Wikipedia for more than two years with almost 23 thousand edits. As to their "input is unprofessional, at best": we are not professional editors here - no one gets paid here. They looked up information, and gave their views, as did the rest of us who commented here. You may not agree with them, but that is the purpose of these AfDs. Anyone who wants to comment on them can - and it is expected that editors who do comment will take the time to look for suitable references - which Drmies did. --  Phantom Steve  ( Contact Me, My Contribs ) 21:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Akia, sorry, I had no intention of belittling the topic of the article or you, though I did feel that your first response to my 'delete' vote was a bit condescending and I responded in kind; still, I hope you will take my joking around with Milowent as just that. I assure you that I did look for sources, especially since with writers my first instinct is to try and keep them--but in this case, I didn't find anything to counter the nominator. All the best, Drmies (talk) 21:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Steve, I just want to point out that I am a professional editor; but that here on Wikipedia I'm just another volunteer editor. (My professional experience as a professional editor and book reviewer [as well as 31 years in the retail book trade] does, of course, influence my viewpoint as to notability of writers and how it can best be gauged.) -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  21:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Mike, I should have said "we are not paid to be editors here" - obviously some of the editors (yourself included) are professional editors (as we have editors from practically every profession possible, I would guess) - but none of them are editing in their capacity of professional editors, albeit they will use those skills when editing! --  Phantom Steve  ( Contact Me, My Contribs ) 22:30, 17 November 2009 (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.