Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suzy Kassem (2nd nomination)


 * 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. The arguments by the socks and special purpose accounts are not convincing. I guess there would have been even more of them, except that the discussion was semi-protected (I don't think I've ever seen that before). I could find no evidence that the article was ever salted, but I will salt it now; it has been created and deleted six times. MelanieN (talk) 00:44, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Suzy Kassem
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article was previously deleted and salted, and has been re-created by a user with no obvious history outside this subject, who has also written virtually all the content - other edits are mainly minor housekeeping. The sources are a press release, a children's book, a couple of quotes (not about the subject, just quoting her) and her own website. The article and its sourcing fail to establish the importance of the subject. This and the other linked articles (e.g. Rise Up and Salute the Sun), are basically a very small walled garden written by one apparent fan. Guy (Help!) 09:49, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Previous AFD "blanked, as a courtesy"?E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:25, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that the blanking is a bit odd. a note on User Bigger Digger's page (not an admin) says he blanked it because an IP had blanked it earlier, which seems rather thin. Then the banner somehow got changed from a brief message saying the article had been deleted but discussion hidden to one just saying the discussion had been hidden, with no mention of the result.Dialectric (talk) 21:23, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I saw an OTRS ticket way back. Regardless, courtesy blanking AfDs for living individuals is not really controversial. Guy (Help!) 22:05, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * True it's not unusual for living persons, but it is unusual to see at an AFD for "an American writer, film director,[1] philosopher, author, and poet" who self-promotes on social media.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:46, 23 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Just as Nom writes, sources on page are inadequate, and my searches on her name turn up nothing: beyond a pair of blog posts.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:25, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Disagree with the AfD. A search online came across more than solely blog content. Activity spans across different types of sites and sources. Additional citations have been added from some more relevant mainstream sources. Interestingly, the author's writings are being quoted directly by other writers and public figures. Who is this person and why are they being cited across the web? The article seems to answer the question on the "who" and supports somewhat the "why" factor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BgY72 (talk • contribs) 00:36, 22 February 2016 (UTC)  — User:BgY72 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * BgY72 now blocked for socking. Meters (talk) 22:52, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:57, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:43, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:43, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:43, 18 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Does not meet wp:AUTHOR. The book is held in all of 5 libraries in WorldCat. I don't find any reviews of it. Two of the references are about the publishing house, with only mentions of her. The film "Harmony Parker" is mis-directed to the wrong Wikipedia page. There is no page for the film, which was a short and doens't seem to have gotten distribution. So I'd say that she also doesn't meet WP:CREATIVE. LaMona (talk) 01:48, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I disagree. She does meet both wp:AUTHOR and WP:CREATIVE. To be fair, citing Worldcat as a source for validity in a claim of overall reach for this author's published work may not be suitable. Participation in Worldcat itself is not a requirement amongst OCLC libraries, according to the Worldcat website.  The OCLC site gives an estimate of approximately 1 million libraries worldwide.  Worldcat has a total of 72,000 participating libraries according to their own website and here on Wikipedia.  This constitutes approximately only 7% of the world's total libraries.  Citing Worldcat as a source for notability with regard to this author's book may not be fair considering it does not include 93% of the world's library data.  For example, Boston, one of the largest public municipal library systems in the United States, lists two copies of this author's book in their catalog.  Yet, this detail is not even included on Worldcat.  According to Wikipedia's existing policy and guidelines for authors and other creative professionals, 'the person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors'. Suzy Kassem and her book are both widely cited by peers, notables, and professionals across many industries and organizations worldwide. The additional citations added to the article (Sir Richard Branson, Forbes and Huffington Post) strongly help to support this claim.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by BgY72 (talk • contribs) 05:09, 22 February 2016 (UTC)  — BgY72 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * BgY72 now blocked for socking. Meters (talk) 22:52, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:BASIC, and does not meet notability standards as an author, filmmaker or any of the other creative professionals. Article creator now indef'ed. Meters (talk) 21:55, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep According to Wikipedia guidelines, people are "presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." The citations in this article are supportive of this requirement. Furthermore, for WP:AUTHOR, this individual has "produced a collective body of work" as indicative of the work published for the title "Rise Up and Salute The Sun" - which is also noted in two of the citations associated with this article. It was mentioned earlier in this discussion that the individual's sources are 30strictly limited to 'a press release, a children's book, a couple of quotes (not about the subject, just quoting her) and her own website', but a careful study of the links provided at the top of the discussion,including a thorough search in many search engines prove this claim to be wrong and misleading. The citations indicate the author is reaching a global audience, and go well beyond just ‘a pair of blog posts'. It's been made clear that this individual's core talent is in writing (writing for visual storytelling, short stories, essays, poetry), and the previous reference to filmmaking (commercials, music videos, short film) seems to have served here as only a creative supplement. Her IMDB link shows Harmony Parker to be 40-minute film. The author's article never stated it was a feature. It's not controversial for anyone to have more than one talent, but customary for people to be known for the talent that 's most visible; i.e., see Viggo Peter Mortensen, Jr.. Also, I've not stumbled upon a single 'press release" as mentioned above (please supply the link), but instead I've encountered a couple of articles from the United Emirates, since the book came forth from that region. The main article covered the author's book where she's featured in the main photo, and another article from Publisher's Weekly features the book as the main draw, since the author is mentioned immediately in the first paragraph.The author has grown significantly since 2011 and her quotes are circulating around the world. In response to a comment above about 'self-promotion' on social media, I have found the author to have abandoned her Facebook fan account page back in 2013 due to censorship (read statement on the page), and another statement about abandoning the rest of her Facebook accounts last year appears on her www.styleisking.blogspot.com account. Also, she clearly states in the same post, and in a directory found on Wordpress, that she has never opened or operated a Twitter, Instagram, LinkedIn, or Google+ account. She has only been committed to her blogspot and WP accounts where she rarely posts, and as her archives prove. She is not promoting herself on social media, but people sharing quotes taken from her book are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.197.229.40 (talk • contribs) 17:18, February 24, 2016‎ — 178.197.229.40  (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Let's be honest and civilized here, sharing poetry and writing to the masses is only a promotion of love. She's a rebel as your checklists should have already revealed, an individual who doesn't conform to normal standards, while other writers on bestseller lists and with publicity trains hold back giving their all unless it comes with the promise of a royalty paycheck. This is chiefly the reason why there's even a discussion here on her merit, so experts outside her chosen fields can decide between themselves if she's worthy enough to be given public titles on their network for what she already does. Slighting her from every angle only makes one appear small and less credible. Strong keep. Web users will be anxious to know more about her when this discussion is finally made available in search results. This is why the principle of acting in good faith is at the heart of decent work. ~ Richard Eyre — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.197.233.246 (talk • contribs) 19:22, February 24, 2016‎  —  178.197.233.246 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep- Writing a book is part of what makes a writer notable, no? If people are buying it as a syllabus requirement from Barnes and Nobles for assigned readings, then it must be important in some way I hope! I don't think my prof would have made our class buy it if she didn't find the writer worth studying. Just think of it this way, if it was being recommended as classroom literature in 2014, then what will it be like when the writer has gray hair? I liked the writer's philosophies and how she saw the world. If anything just make the book cheaper for students! I live in Arizona and had to be notified by email when the book became available because both copies had been checked out of Scottsdale Public Library! This isn't in Worldcat! I just checked! Nobody talked about colleges studying the writer and her ideas! Besides this point, the writer has content that shows she is being acknowledged in plenty of verifiable sources. I find it interesting that new people who've created accounts specifically to discuss this issue here and therefore could be expected to be knowledgeable and passionate about it -have been ignored- whereas the existing notes from the judges includes "my searches on her name turn up nothing beyond a pair of blog posts." It seems new users have added additional material to the page that have expanded on the original content-and this still is being seen as to not be making a significant contribution to the article? Do these judges even read and who are they? My friend in Germany has the book! Where did he get it from then? This discussion makes no sense whatsoever! Just admit you have problems with the book because everything I've read on the writer or the book here sound like you guys are discussing something and someone entirely different. Is this on purpose? Are we talking about the renowned Suzy Kassem from Ohio with words all over the place? That one? Black hair and olive skin who writes cool poetry and is smart as hell? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vkatz (talk • contribs) 21:29, 24 February 2016 (UTC)  — Vkatz (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * 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.