Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toni Turner


 * 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   Keep. (non-admin closure) Unionhawk Talk E-mail 05:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Toni Turner

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

STRONG DELETE This article should be deleted because the person does not meet the notability standards of wikipedia nor is there any sourcing. The author fails to identify who published the books, how many were printed, and if the sales were national. In addition the author fails to say whether these books have been relied on or subsequently referred to by other publications to give the books notability. This article lacks any sourcing or any verifiable accounts that the books were even published. Anyone can write a book and pay to have it published and even produce a DVD in this day and age. But without any sourcing or elaboration as to what makes this person notable or if they added anything to the field of fianace with his/her book that other financiers/scholars have not already made, makes me highly doubt the notability of this person. Unless the author wants to clean it up and add some more biographical information this article should be deleted. Notable people should easily be able to have a full biography not a stub listing books they supposedly published.Quidproquo1980 (talk) 05:51, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak delete - Google looks to return a decent bit, but nothing I see that looks immediately to be a reliable source. However, she sounds notable, and I'd probably revise my position if someone pointed to one or two reliable sources. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 06:15, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete, appears to fail WP:BIO, WP:CREATIVE and WP:N; possible notability later, but for now, does not appear that notable and we don't try to predict future notability. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 06:40, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete - works published by Adams Media, and at least one book has gone to a second edition. I could not find any reviews, and I don't know what vetting process Adams Media has regarding its publications. At least these books are listed on Amazon.com. We have had some vanity press autobiographies submitted by vanity press authors who are excluded from Amazon.com Racepacket (talk) 17:21, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. In looking at the sales rankings from Amazon, the books sell pretty well. A Beginner's Guide to Day Trading Online (2nd edition) is ranked #2,197 overall and in the top 10 in both e-commerce and investing futures books. Considering that their rankings go into the 4 million title range, being in the 25K range is pretty decent. "A Beginner's Guide to Short Term Trading: Maximize Your Profits in 3 Days to 3 Weeks" is currently ranked #25,384. "A Beginner's Guide to Short Selling with Toni Turner" DVD is #46 in business related DVD's. Book reviews from large papers, including this one:  which not only talks about her book, but her background as well. An appearence On Fox Business News as an expert: . I found others, but that should suffice. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Changing to Weak Keep. Those sources look pretty good, but I'd prefer more, thus the weak keep. However, they do assert some notability, and most definitely point to the strong possibility of more sources. Thanks, Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 05:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I never heard of the woman before this AfD and I'll be honest, I have no intention of working on the article, so please don't interpret my post as a promise to do so. I'm just ponting out that it only took a couple of minutes to find some pretty good indicators of notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 09:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Speedy Keep: And in thirty seconds' worth of searching, I find links to the Palm Beach Post, Salon, Hindu Business Line, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Daily News, Publishers Weekly, Business Wire, FOXBusiness ... Now this is where I would suggest that the nom review deletion policy and realize that it is not the lack of sources that defeat a stub, but unsourceability ... and in further poking see that nom is a SPA whose sole Wikipedia activity was within a one hour stretch last Saturday, nominating three articles for deletion on identical grounds, two of which closed with overwhelming Keeps. IMHO, this is a bad faith nomination and should be Speedy Kept as such.    RGTraynor  06:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think calling it bad faith (especially in bold print), is a little harsh. The author should bear a certain amount of responsibility to adequately source the article and satisfy notability. Yes, I know about WP:BEFORE, but putting the blame totally on the nominator isn't really right. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:31, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - This person seems to have a lot of coverage in independent sources regarding her work, I can't see why this was put up for AfD PanydThe muffin is not subtle 19:33, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - what more do you want from her? A knighthood? That's an awful lot of sources from many international publications. I see no reason why anyone can legitimately argue that her books are vanity autobiographies. (What kind of vanity autobiography gets a 2nd edition?) And the books aren't even autobiography to boot. I'm not convinced this was necessarily "bad faith" as RGTraynor argues, but I think the SPA issues are significant enough to raise questions about the nom's motives/intentions. Seems to me RGTraynor was justified in calling it out. Zachlipton (talk) 07:19, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You know, I'm trying to AGF, but it seems like I'm the only one. This "SPA" also !voted other AfD totally unrelated to the 3 he nominated, 2 of those votes being to "move". He did nominate 3 article, and 2 have been closed. But one was closed after 2 votes, so I'd be disinclined to call that "overwhelming". The other had 5. A definate consensus, but not as overwhelming as it sounds. Has anyone considered that the "SPA" has edited before as an IP editor and simply registered since IP's can't complete AfD's on their own? Niteshift36 (talk) 07:34, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I'm willing to AGF here and realize that the nom's motives, if any, shouldn't really be the discussion here in any case. I guess I was just trying to AGF on the part of RGTraynor by pointing out that his callout wasn't really unreasonable. It seems like we have/will soon have a consensus towards keeping the article, so there's no need for a speedy keep and I don't see much reason to argue the point now. Zachlipton (talk) 08:36, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, it looks like Ms. Turner is safe on Wikipedia. It's all good. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:52, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm quite happy with characterizing two AfDs that collectively had unanimous Keeps other than the nom's POV as "overwhelming." That being said, the wording of WP:AGF is not "Never say anything disparaging about another editor."  The wording is "Unless there is strong evidence to the contrary, assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it."  Of course you may disagree with my assertion, but I rather believe the strong evidence stares us in the face; WP:AGF is not a suicide pact.   RGTraynor  02:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't get me wrong, I strongly believe that AGF has it's limitations and I've said things similar to yours in the past. I just don't think the evidence is all that strong, nor do I feel that a 2 vote AfD is "overwhelming". I said my piece. I'm not going to beat this dead horse any longer. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:32, 27 July 2009 (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.