Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Janet Balaskas
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You have new messages (last change).
- 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. Sandstein 06:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Closer's rationale:
- WP:V, which consensus cannot override, mandates reliable sources for any content. Such are not in evidence. Janet Balaskas' website is not reliable; see WP:V#SELF.
- Search engine and Usenet search results are not substitutes for reliable independent sources, which are also required under WP:N/WP:BIO. See WP:SET for a discussion on this.
- In particular, the Google News Archives search indicates no sources which seem to have Janet Balaskas as their primary subject, and which could thus either provide notability or verification, even if they were accessible.
[edit] Janet Balaskas
Apparent failure of WP:BIO, Zero GNews hits, many Ghits but seem to be only selling her marginally popular books - the highest ranked such one on Amazon is ~ 11500 (If she passes WP:BIO, this is where, but I don't think she does). She apparently runs some sort of maternity products webstore, and has written a few books, none of which seem particularly noteworthy. WilyD 14:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - Only see http://www.birthlightconference.com/pub/ui/Speakers/Speaker_Jb.aspx one article] which is close to an independent source, however it is really just a bio for her as a speaker at a conference. The rest are ads for her books or services. (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 14:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete or properly source and reference Alf photoman 16:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep & Improve 66,800 Ghits for a unique name implies notability. She is noticed, but we have to spend some time to document --Kevin Murray 22:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep I think we at WP are in some trouble if we rely solely on Google hits or GNews (what is this?) to determine notability. Anyone active before the advent of the internet will receive correspondingly small numbers of hits and Janet Balaskas did most of her pioneering work prior internet. Despite that, Google still seems to find her name 68,000 times! She does not run a maternity products store, but rather an organization that trains childbirth educators and midwives in active birth. Sure, her website does sell some products, but I don't think it can be called a maternity webstore. As for her few books, they are considered by the natural birth movement significant texts. Whilst, it is clear HarperCollins is trying to flog her books, read about what they say here: [[1]] In all honesty, most authors simply have sites flogging their books - this does prove that someone things that their books are worth flogging. A search on Google Groups will show that she is mentioned many times in newsgroups dealing with natural birth. Maustrauser 22:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
- Newsgroups are not reliable sources. At the time it was nominated, it was unreferenced and looked like spam, and the problem I'm alluding too is that
- A) she appears to fail WP:BIO
- B) Reliable sources are few and far between (For instance, I could find none).
- YMMV, but I'll say straight up it's never inappropriate to nominate a completely unreferenced article. WilyD 14:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment Newsgroups are not reliable sources but they do show that people who have nothing to do with flogging Balaskas' books talk about her and what she writes about. Surely this helps demonstrate notability? I'd humbly suggest that Balaskas is far more notable and influential than the vast number of popular bands and cartoon characters that seem to dominate WP these days! Maustrauser 21:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that's true. Newsgroups are a) ravaged by spam, and b) can be filled up with a lot of posts by very few posters. So many/all of the posts can easily be made by people hawking her books, or by a half dozen people who violently disagree with her. An infinite number of Usenet posts won't get you past WP:BIO. If Usenet posts are a measure of notability, then Viagra is more notable than Antibiotics. WilyD 21:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
- You are quite right about them being riddled with spam. But if if we actually read some of the posts we discover that it is a variety of people in a variety of countries over a period of time debating her notion of active birth. So by looking at the content and not simply looking at the numbers a better assessment can be made. What does YMMV stand for? Maustrauser 22:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that's true. Newsgroups are a) ravaged by spam, and b) can be filled up with a lot of posts by very few posters. So many/all of the posts can easily be made by people hawking her books, or by a half dozen people who violently disagree with her. An infinite number of Usenet posts won't get you past WP:BIO. If Usenet posts are a measure of notability, then Viagra is more notable than Antibiotics. WilyD 21:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Newsgroups are not reliable sources but they do show that people who have nothing to do with flogging Balaskas' books talk about her and what she writes about. Surely this helps demonstrate notability? I'd humbly suggest that Balaskas is far more notable and influential than the vast number of popular bands and cartoon characters that seem to dominate WP these days! Maustrauser 21:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- Keep A Google News Archives search shows she's referenced many times by many WP:RS on the subject of natural childbirth.[2] --Oakshade 06:15, 20 January 2007 (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.
