Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lynn Sonberg


 * 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. For the most part, the keep side was producing vague and/or unproven claims that have no bearing on her objective notability as specified by the guidelines. At the end, however, DGG mentions some sources that may be used to establish notability. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 00:13, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Lynn Sonberg

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Fails WP:BIO with no sources forthcoming. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:19, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak delete - This claims that several of her books are bestsellers, but it's quite vague. I'm finding no other sources on her, really. — GorillaWarfare talk-review me! 14:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Subject of this article is a noted literary agent and author of 13 books on health and nutrition. Your Struggling Child... was listed in the bibliography, however, she was not the author. The original editor may have intended to use the book as a reference. Cindamuse (talk) 14:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Noted where? — GorillaWarfare talk-review me! 15:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - could not find independent reliable source to establish notability. Does not pass WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG.--209.207.95.65 (talk) 15:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Comment - Vapid stub about obscure writer. Carrite (talk) 16:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I've snooped around enough to come around to Weak Keep on this... 551 available copies by the author on ABEBooks indicates to me a sufficient level of mainstream notability. Sufficient career achievement to indicate that a decent bio can probably be written on the author someday... Carrite (talk) 04:29, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Links have been offered to publishers, along with a collection of the author's works, which are in and of themselves, reliable sources of the author's notability. The author has created significant and well-known work in the areas of specialized health and nutrition. The first book on the link I provided was a national bestseller with over 250,000 copies sold. If not well-known to you, I would think authoring 150 books would qualify as significant. It's puzzling to me that this accomplishment is not being recognized and considered. Reliable sources include those that are found apart from those on the Internet. Policy states that the works themselves, along with the creator and publisher are considered reliable sources. There are several found both online and offline. It doesn't seem that anyone else wants to perform an exhaustive search. Again, policy criteria provides for deletion when articles can not possibly be attributed to reliable sources. This is not the case with this article. I think I've provided enough information here. I really don't want to click through every link for everyone and copy|paste the content here. I'm not personally involved, I just thought to offer the sources. Notability has been appropriately established. No harm; no foul. I think I've provided all the information I can on this subject. Cindamuse (talk) 03:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak delete per GorillaWarfare. I tried several searches on this author (him? her?) and could not find anything about the person, a la J. D. Salinger.  That having been said, there are a lot of Ghits, so there might be something out there, but I've given up. Bearian (talk) 20:31, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Further research shows that Lynn Sonberg is president/editorial director of Lynn Sonberg Book Associates; writer and producer of over 150 titles for major publishers, including HarperCollins, Random House, St. Martin's Press, Perseus Book Group, Penguin USA, Holt, Simon & Schuster; specializing in nonfiction collaborations, mostly health, parenting, business, and personal finance. The subject is also a speaker and panelist addressing writer's conferences. This author is far from obscure, working in a very specialized field. If you click on the book source link above, you will find some information on her involvement in the publishing industry. Cindamuse (talk) 21:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - I still stick by my position. All of the sources you say can be found by clicking on the books link are books by the author, not third-party sources on her. You say that she is not obscure in her field, which would suggest that she meets one of the guidelines in WP:AUTHOR, but I see no sources forthcoming to prove this. If you can find some sources, I might be willing to change my vote. Til then, delete it is. — GorillaWarfare talk-review me! 23:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'm not wowed either. Carrite (talk) 23:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Response. AfD is not a voting process, but rather dialogue pertaining to policy. There can be 20 keeps and one delete, but if policy indicates delete, then that criteria will prevail. That said, the overriding policy is covered in WP:AUTHOR. It doesn't matter how many online articles are found, however, they are most certainly available. What is significant is her contribution to the research, study, and publication in the field of health and nutrition. If you look further within the list of books provided, you will find sufficient information regarding her contributions and books that have become bestsellers. The sheer number of books written and produced, in addition to her participation in writers conferences (providing guidance to other writers) eliminates the concern of obscurity.
 * The policy located at WP:SOURCES indicates types of reliable sources.
 * ''The word "source" as used in Wikipedia has three meanings: the piece of work itself (a document, article, paper, or book), the creator of the work (for example, the writer), and the publisher of the work (for example, The New York Times). All three can affect reliability.
 * While references are not currently included, policy criteria provides for deletion when articles can not possibly attributed to reliable sources. This is not the case with this article. Citations culled from reliable sources simply have been neglected by previous editors. Cindamuse (talk) 23:46, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Response to the response I'm pretty sure we're aware of the policy. The thing is, I still see no proof of notability. We've seen no proof of her peers/successors "widely citing" her work or regarding her as an important figure; no proof of her originating a significant concept, theory, or technique; no proof of her creating or co-creating significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews; and no proof of her work (a) becoming a significant monument, (b) being a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) winning significant critical attention, or (d) being represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. Show me proof of this, and like I said before, I'll change my vote recommendation. However, the volume of her writing and the participation in writers' conferences is not enough to meet WP:AUTHOR. — GorillaWarfare talk-review me! 01:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, I've seen no "citations culled from reliable sources" that have "simply have been neglected by previous editors." It would be helpful if you could link to examples of these things you mention -- simply saying they exist is not quite enough. Thanks! — GorillaWarfare talk-review me! 01:10, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Reply. With respect, AfD is not a voting process, but rather a discussion to recommend a course of action. See WP:AFDEQ. Citations can not be seen, because as I stated above, they haven't been written on Wikipedia yet. The presentation of citations has been neglected by previous editors. Citations can easily be written though, using the sources I've provided.
 * Comment - I apologize if the word "vote" made you think I think it's a voting process. I changed it above to "recommendation". As for the rest of your comment, where are the sources you've provided? As far as I've seen, you've only mentioned the Google Books link. Unless I'm missing something, I see no reference to a national bestseller on that link. The fact that there are no citations is no bother to me -- citations are easily made. It's the fact that there are no reliable, third-party sources that I have seen so far that does bother me. I'm not asking you to click through every link and copy/paste the content -- if you could just provide some of the URLs or anything, we could go through ourselves. As for the policy stating that the work itself, along with the publisher and creator, is a reliable source, I believe you're misinterpreting that. They are reliable sources for content -- for example, if you wanted to know the date that the book was published, you could look at the copyright page and cite that as a source. However, those sources are not considered reliable sources when determining notability. If you look at the general notability guideline, it says "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." It is the independent sources that this article is lacking. — GorillaWarfare talk-review me! 13:26, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - Running titles by Lynn Sonberg published in the last 30 years on WorldCat returns 3 works of juvenile fiction and around a dozen titles on foods and health, plus translations. Sufficient career achievement to merit inclusion? Maybe. But that's not a normal Wikipedia standard... The existence of a bunch of books published by a mainstream publisher aren't considered adequate — even though for music releases they would be... Where does that leave us? With a bad stub about an obscure author... Carrite (talk) 04:16, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep at least as a children's author. 549 copies of A horse named Paris still in libraries 13 years later is notability. It was reviewed in the selective sources "School Library Journal" v. 34 (Sept. 1987).  and The Horn Book v. 63 (Mar./Apr. 1987). Whether she's notable as a writer of popular nutrition books I'm not clear about--but they have been translated into several languages, which normally is a good indication of notability. .  One of the titles, The Health Nutrient Bible was reviewed, in the selective sources "  Library Journal" v. 120 (Dec. 1995), and Booklist 92 (Dec. 1 1995). By our usual standards, reviews are RSs for proving the notability of authors.    DGG ( talk ) 04:28, 11 August 2010 (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.