Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kim Ponders


 * 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 Keep. Agent 86 00:45, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Kim Ponders


Violates both WP:BIO and WP:AUTO. This author isn't notable. Delete GreenJoe 16:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not a notable author per WP:BIO. Enough other editors have touched the file since I seconded the prod that I don't have autobiography concerns, but there's still nothing to show she's notable . —C.Fred (talk) 16:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, upon reconsideration. The cited reviews have satisfied WP:BIO in my eyes. —C.Fred (talk) 19:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - Author of two novels with major publishing company (Harper Collins), a Washington Post writer and WP:BIO notability established by at least two reliable sources (the non-written NPR audio interview could be counted as a third). As for the subject having written much of the article, it does appear typically WP:NPOV and has none of the blatant self-aggrandizing we've seen before.  --Oakshade 17:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Were either or both of the sources reviews? They seemed to be more interviews about her experiences than reviews of her work. Per WP:BIO, authors need to have been reviewed or won awards to be notable. —C.Fred (talk) 17:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * responseThey actually appear like profiles. Alot of interviews include write-ups of the subject before the interview section begins.  As for your requested reviews, I found some independent reveiws of her books -  and I see the New York Times reviewed her  (registered members can read the full works). --Oakshade 18:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep notable-enough author. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  17:50, 26 November 2006 (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.