Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melanie Joy


 * 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.  Jujutacular  talk 00:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Melanie Joy

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

This article has been speedied twice already. Subject is author of two non award winning books, and the only WP:RS is the mention of her name on the staff list at the uni she works part-time   (her own self-published web site doesn't count). Fails at WP:GNG, WP:ACADEMIC, and WP:AUTHOR. Kudpung (talk) 22:44, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 20 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I understand how somebody who has been spoken of in US News, the NY Times, the Ellen Show, has written two books, one of which (Strategic Action for Animals) was published by one of the leading publishers of English-language animal rights literature, plus interviews and mentions in hundreds of articles, blogs, and radio shows (even the slightest google search will show you this) can be considered not notable enough for a wiki entry. There are plenty of less "notable" people on wikipedia, if I need to list them I can do that. -cz —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.128.105.229 (talk) 01:18, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * What you need to list are published works, from independent people with good reputations for fact checking and accuracy, that document, in depth, this person's life and works, from which a neutral, verifiable, and comprehensive encyclopaedia biography can be made. Arguments of the but-someone-else-created-a-bad-biography-article kind will just be ignored, for failing to address the subject at hand.  Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G (talk) 13:20, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Precisely, and it's covered by our guideline at  WP:OTHERCRAP--Kudpung (talk) 13:31, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Lantern Books is not a "leading publisher", animal rights or otherwise. Normally, that term is reserved for one of top-tier commercial houses, or a university-associated press like CUP or PUP. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:59, 22 November 2010 (UTC).
 * Comment. Not much to find on GS so won't pass WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:53, 22 November 2010 (UTC).
 * Strong delete - repeatedly-recreated non-notable bio failing all the tests offered by the nominator; WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument no more convincing than any other time; possible COI, autobiography and/or sockpuppetry involved, but that's not grounds for deletion. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  20:19, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, insufficient evidence of notability. The list of ELs at the bottom of the article amount to less than might appear -- the NYT link, for example, does not contain any substantial coverage about her.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:55, 23 November 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.