Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pam England


 * 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 of the debate was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Pam England
seeming nn, but wrote a famous book (needs verification). Speedy was contested. M1ss1ontomars2k4 04:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Note that the famous book doesn't have an article. --Rory096 21:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * keep the book does have a number matches on google. And she is definately the author. See Amnonc 20:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * This nomination was incomplete, listing now. - Liberatore(T) 19:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete Have added book references and web site details, but doing a mental trim of the article, removing all non notable details, simply leaves the book. (the paintings aren't referred to except on subjects web site) but that, by itself, would fail WP:BIO unless references are forthcoming that this is a groundbreaking enough book to merit the co-author's article being kept on that basis alone. Regards, MartinRe 22:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 *  AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.  Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Deathphoenix ʕ 15:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. The article cites no awards this author has won nor reviews of her work, so she fails WP:BIO. —C.Fred (talk) 21:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm the one who protested the prod in this case (about a month ago now?!?! wierd...)  I ran her book thought google and got 57k hit.  A few of them were from people offering classes (& here) and a few articles in specilty journals (& here) related to child-birth.  I think thats a good case for the book being notable, but does it make Pam notable?  I'm going to abstain on that one for now. ---J.S (t|c) 20:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete "Pam describes the new understanding that came to her". Yeah, right, the new understanding that has come to me is that this is a non-notable person. The book OTOH is well regarded and could merit a standalone article. BlueValour 02:56, 23 June 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.