Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Practicing for Love: A Memoir


 * 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. Seems like we have a consensus that coronavirus notwithstanding, the article topic still needs attention from reliable sources that are independent from the subject and doesn't currently have them. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:25, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Practicing for Love: A Memoir

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:NBOOK. Self-published autobiography and all references are directly connected to the author (1-3 are from a website she runs, 4 is the "shop" section of her TV show's website). This article was published the book's author, who appears to have been WP:COI editing about herself for years (literally hundreds of edits). GPL93 (talk) 14:24, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 14:24, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

The pandemic delayed the official launch of the book, but this does not mean that more press on the book will not be forthcoming. It is simply less organized and more difficult to find. And she does not "run" the website you are talking about. GPL93, why are you espousing false information? Nina07011960 (talk) 18:50, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge to Nina Gamble Kennedy as it looks like the author is notable. I looked for reviews of this book in the obvious places (Kirkus, Publisher's Weekly) as well as just in Google. Found nothing usable. --DiamondRemley39 (talk) 14:55, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Whoa there. Here on Wikipedia, we are to assume good faith in fellow editors. The posts on the Infemnity blog are written in first-person, so saying that Nina Kennedy "runs" the site is not a stretch. If the press is "less organized" (I don't see how press can be disorganized... it can be lacking, or difficult to locate, but not "disorganized"), why don't you paste links to articles here and we'll do our best to incorporate them into the article? If significant press is coming in future weeks or months, an article on it should not be submitted for creation until then. First the horse, then the cart. I take it from your username that you are Nina Kennedy. Or do you just represent her? Or are you a fan? DiamondRemley39 (talk) 19:12, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Nina Kennedy contributes to the blogs and websites, but she does not run it. The publisher was unable to send adequate press materials because of the pandemic. We are playing a game of catch-up. Surely you're not holding that against her. Nina07011960 (talk) 19:23, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * What you are describing is WP:TOOSOON, which is valid grounds for deletion. Also, I apologize if that is not the case but there is clearly a very strong connection Kennedy and Infemnity. In Thirdly, you still need to make a formal WP:COI declaration and you must refrain from making direct edits related to Nina Kennedy in general. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:01, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Also who exactly is "we"? Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:06, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

So you mean to tell me that there have been no adjustments made around the pandemic. Nina07011960 (talk) 20:31, 17 May 2020 (UTC) Plus, Nina Kennedy hosts the show that INFEMNITY produces. She does not own the company. Nina07011960 (talk) 20:33, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, acccording to LinkedIn, Infemnity has two employees, one of whom is Nina Kennedy (creative director).https://www.linkedin.com/company/infemnity-productions DiamondRemley39 (talk) 20:47, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , it is horse (independent coverage). Then cart (Wikipedia article). Kennedy or her publisher's failure to get things done by their own timeline does not matter. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 20:42, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , if you are Nina Kennedy, which I suspect as "1960" in the username is a match for her year of birth, I would suggest requesting a change in username as you may not want that information out there. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 20:42, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

As I said, no adjustments around a GLOBAL PANDEMIC????? Nina07011960 (talk) 20:47, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Why would there be? This is not a web host or a marketing tool this is an encyclopedia of notable topics. Why would we make exceptions and add non-notable topics? GPL93 (talk) 20:48, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * A third time, please disclose your relationship to Nina Gamble Kennedy. You were warned over two years ago by two different editors (Largoplazo and DESiegel) about COI editing and since then you have made HUNDREDs of COI edits and made no COI disclosure. GPL93 (talk) 20:52, 17 May 2020 (UTC)


 * , do you know whether any of this is grounds for speedy? DiamondRemley39 (talk) 20:54, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * it very well may qualify under WP:A7/WP:G11. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:56, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Articles about Books are out-of-scope for A7. G11 might apply, but since the AfD has been started and views have been expressed, I would advise letting it run, then there is a clear established consensus -- much harder to overturn than a speedy. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 04:44, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * A "GLOBAL PANDEMIC" doesn't magically cause this book to meet the notability guidelines for inclusion. Based on your comment and your earlier one, "Surely you're not holding that against her", you appear to be of the belief that articles and content on Wikipedia in any way may be treated as being for the benefit of their subjects. This is an encyclopedia, not a social media platform through which Nina Gamble Kennedy or anyone acting on her behalf should be posting anything here for her benefit or to meet her purposes. A topic qualifies for an article if it meets WP:N—if it meets it now. Not based on anyone's guesses as to whether it will meet WP:N in the future, including guesses based on speculation that the only reason it hasn't met WP:N yet is because of a pandemic and that it surely would have happened by now otherwise. Largoplazo (talk) 22:07, 17 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete. Fails to pass notability test WP:GNG or other category. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:44, 17 May 2020 (UTC).
 * Delete per Xxanthippe --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:54, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I have WP:PRODed Matthew Kennedy: One Man's Journey, which was created by this article's author and is another work by Nina Kennedy that does not appear to meet notability standards. Best, GPL93 (talk) 23:20, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If deprodded, a redirect to Matthew Washington Kennedy, with a few citations copied over, would be a good idea. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 23:26, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * de-prodded I'll AfD and propose delete then redirect. Best, GPL93 (talk) 00:02, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. It's been deprodded (and de- and re-tagged). DiamondRemley39 (talk) 00:06, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps put Draft:The Noshing with Nina Show on your watchlists too. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:18, 18 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete unless multiple independant published reliable sources are found and cited. I looked and did not find any. There should be no prejudice against later recreation if proper sources to demonstrate notability become available later. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 04:37, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

If you delete this article, you will be contributing to the lack of diversity on Wikipedia. One would be left to conclude that this lack of diversity is intentional and deliberate. Nina07011960 (talk) 15:04, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * the only thing that has been deliberate and intentional is your using Wikipedia a means of boosting your own profile in spite of multiple warnings not to do so. There is absolutely no evidence that this subject meets any notability criteria. GPL93 (talk) 15:44, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The same rules and principles apply to this article as to all other articles, regardless of the ethnicity of the subjects or the editors. We do not enhance diversity by making exceptions to the standard principles. When and if there is evidence that Practicing for Love is a notable work, as Wikipedia uses that term, we will be happy to have an article about it. Note, it is very rare that a just released work is already notable, although it sometimes happens. When an if there is in-depth independent coverage in reliable sources of this work, there can be an article about it, and not until then. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 15:49, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This is not the first time Nina07011960 has accused the Wikipedia community of disrespecting diversity while doubting an article on a product she is trying to promote. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew Kennedy: One Man's Journey. My assessment is that the accusation has been made in bad faith. ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (Talk&#124;Contribs) 23:29, 18 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete, or possibly redirect to Nina Gamble Kennedy. This article is almost certainly a conflict of interest as the author (or someone connected to her) tries to draw attention to her own book, but Wikipedia is not a promotional service. As all of the legitimate voters above have described very informatively, the book has received none of the significant and independent notice that is required for an encyclopedic article; see WP:BKCRIT in particular. If the pandemic has delayed publicity for the book, that's unfortunate but then WP:TOOSOON becomes applicable, to put it charitably. ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (Talk&#124;Contribs) 23:35, 18 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete, does not meet WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG, a gsearch has found no useable reviews, may be a case of WP:TOOSOON? Coolabahapple (talk) 12:15, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete does not meet notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:06, 22 May 2020 (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.