Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary Summer Rain

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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Summer Rain

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

Non-notable author, article created primarily to promote said author. A clone article Mary Lee, aka author Mary Summer Rain, which contained pretty much the exact same text, was speedy deleted but for some reason the speedy of this article was declined. Fails WP:Author. - <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 22:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notable reliable sources supporting notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is gonna be a regretful Delete. I like it, but that doesn't make her notable. Dangit. We need more demonstration of notability. Please change my mind? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and strongly consider salting it. I stripped it down multiple times, and once all the spam and OR was removed, there was almost nothing there. Same editor returned multiple times to revert without discussion, and delete all sources critical to the subject. For the moment, I'll leave it in that non-encyclopedic state, so people can see what an OR/spam magnet it is. If it's not deleted, it will have to be protected. These sorts of articles waste everyone's time here. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 00:42, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

diff on what it looked like before the return of LisaPea. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 01:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep this title, Earthway: A Native American Visionary's Path to Total Mind, Body, and Spirit Health is from Atria, a division of Simon and Schuster (ISBN 0671706675), a major publisher. when i worked in the book business, her books sold by the carloads to new age and metaphysical bookstores, enough for her to be picked up by this trade publisher. she may not be a bestseller by stephen king standards, but within the new age market, she is extremely notable (i am not a fan of hers, by the way). her main publisher, hampton roads, is not a mainstream publisher, but they are known for starting authors out and cultivating them. If the article is blatant advertising, thats easily fixed. if kept, i will also attempt to trim out advert and just leave the basics. and i do support protecting it, since it will unfortunately attract all the wild eyed newagers again and again. i agree that its a waste of time constantly fixing up articles ruined by people with no idea of how to write an npov encyclopedia article, and think this is a free webhosting service and fansite, but that may be the price we pay for what we are doing. dont ask me about pokemon...Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite protection is not something that will be accepted. It will always eventually be unprotected and the spamming will begin anew. Anyway, that aside, I don't see anything supporting claims of notability, like WP:RSes... we need multiple instances of them to establish notability. The subject seems to fail WP:Author. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 01:36, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you're concerned about those who would come here and ruin Wikipedia because they think this is a free webhosting service and fansite, please refer to WP:AFD for a good answer to the solution. =) --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 05:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I remember something about being published by a major publisher constitutes sufficient for WP:N - though I could be thinking of a similar criteria in WP:MUSIC. Can't find a note about it. Somebody clarify for me? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:11, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Must have been music. WP:Author doesn't say anything about being published by a major publisher. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 03:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I started a discussion here but the discussion never gained traction. --Marc Kupper|talk 06:09, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment (back again): this author had 2 books published by simon and schuster, earthway and beyond earthway. her main publisher, hampton roads, while not a major trade publisher, has had numerous bestsellers: Conversations with God and "When Everything Changes, Change Everything: In a Time of Turmoil, a Pathway to Peace" which is currently ranked at about #1800 at amazon.com, and was higher at one point.[1] not bad for a smaller publisher. this is not to establish notability by association, but to show that IF hampton roads can be considered a major publisher (albeit new age), then mary summer rain, with over a dozen books from this publisher[2], some of them bestsellers for this publisher, must be considered notable. I do understand the arguments given here, and if she was less notable, i wouldnt hesitate to agree to delete and salt. i think its just not appropriate. oh, and i agree that the article as it stands is a piece of crap. im just being honest...Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:18, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eh... still not a good enough reason to keep IMO. The major publisher criteria never gained consensus, so even if Hampton Roads could be considered a major publisher (dubious, requires a lot of synthesis and creative interpretation)... <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 18:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

apparent WP:COI, no evidence of notability -- delete pending the proper presentation of WP:BIO notability. This is the responsibility of the editors wishing to keep the article, not of those voting delete, so please pull your own weight. --dab (𒁳) 14:31, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to fix up the article as long as the consensus appears to be deletion. ive made my arguments, which may not be enough, and i accept that, and i personally dont care about this author, who appears to be a "twinkie" or "plastic shaman". however, another comment: I have to confess i had not checked out WP:Author, and i had assumed it was a fairly detailed policy. it appears to me to be very vague, much too vague considering the importance of authors. I feel somewhat uncomfortable participating in discussions for deletions of author articles with guidelines like this in place. I will try to bring up my concerns at the proper forum, not here, but i hope others who would like to clarify author notability guidelines could help, probably at the author project. And i want to thank User:Kathryn NicDhàna for linking to this articles abhorrent past, it breaks my heart when people abuse their privileges here.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:02, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Author is fairly vague, good luck herding the cats into revising it

. I tend to think that CSD#A9 should include "unremarkable books where the author's article doesn't exist". <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 18:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or revert to older non-spammy version. Hairhorn (talk) 14:29, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no good references support notability. NTK (talk) 21:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.