Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kittredge Cherry


 * 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. The Bushranger One ping only 02:21, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Kittredge Cherry

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

I doubt that this person meets the notability criteria: most of the references lead to her own website, and I'm not sure whether a couple of mentions in the external sources (one is dated 1988) are enough to establish notability. Besides, the article was created by her own request, so it seems a lot like self-advertising. --Dr. Bobbie Fox (talk) 08:27, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Link from Nape is completely legitimate... AnonMoos (talk) 19:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Note to closer: I have refactored the nomination to include the standard AfD templates. The nomination was not transcluded in the daily AfD Log, I will add it now. Please consider this the time of initial listing for closing purposes. Monty  845  20:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 22:30, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 22:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. GNews shows coverage of the subject and her writings in multiple reliable sources, e.g.. --Arxiloxos (talk) 05:07, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment -- If notable at all, I would regard her as on the margins of notability. Does the fact that a book has been reviewed in a major newspaper make the author notable?  I am very dubious.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:52, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. Yes, that's exactly what is said in point #3 of WP:AUTHOR -- I see three major newspaper reviews here, which precisely meets #3, although I'm personally generally willing to accept the NYT as an arbiter of notability.  Ubelowme U  Me  21:45, 7 August 2012 (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) 20:19, 31 July 2012 (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) 20:20, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. The Lambda nomination, a review in the LA Times, BAR, NY Times, the other citations, six publications by reputable publishers -- this seems clear-cut to me.  I have no problem with a notable author requesting that an article be written about her -- isn't that the best way to make sure it gets done without COI issues?  Ubelowme U  Me  21:39, 7 August 2012 (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.