Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wendy Perriman

Wendy Perriman

Wendy Perriman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was developed through this paid-editing bid on odesk.com. It is very puffed up, and the subject doesn't meet the general notability guideline or the specific notability guideline for authors. She isn't considered by many to be authoritative or innovative in her field, she hasn't developed any significant concepts, her collective output isn't notable, and the attention devoted to is isn't significant. Her publishers, Inka Publications and the Cambridge Scholars Press, are both relatively small and nonnotable. There are also serious conflict of interest and promotional issues here. ThemFromSpace 11:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• Stong Delete & Comment If the Cambridge Scholars Press is non-notable, then shouldn't its WP article be deleted. I don't like the idea that some people, as expressed by the listing at this paid-editing bid, view Wikipedia as a personal depository. While WP editors may suggest the creation of new articles, I doubt that WP officials preauthorized the creation of this article. Since most of the references are not internet accessible, verification is difficult. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 12:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• Keep I would disagree with the comments above. Penguin books is a major international publisher which certainly gives the author legitimacy.

• Keep The content was edited earlier today and now looks pretty factual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.107.0.81 (talk) 19:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• Keep I expect that the writer did not know Wikipedia markup language such as adding a picture to Wikipedia, so I would find that asking someone to do this is a fair ask for a non-technical person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.107.0.81 (talk • contribs) 19:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• Delete No independent sources are cited at all, and there does not seem to be any evidence of notability. (Incidentally, the notability of the publishers is totally irrelevant, as notability is not inherited, and nor is non-notability.) JamesBWatson (talk) 19:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
• Delete and comment - Advertising. Further evidence that ISBN numbers are BAR CODE NUMBERS FOR SELLING BOOKS. They need to be botted the hell into extinction on Wikipedia. Use OCLC numbers if you think WP users are too retarded to use author and title info to track down a title. Hmph! Carrite (talk) 19:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)