Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruth Symes

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. Note that just because there may be a conflict of interest by the person that creates an article, this is not in and of itself reason to delete the article. —Doug Bell ^talk 19:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ruth Symes

Ruth Symes (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Article about a children's writer, created by Ericwainwright who is the subject's husband. Article appears to be little more than an excuse to list Amazon links for her books (there are 10 Amazon links in total). Saikokira 00:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep Author appears to be notable enought. TSO1D 01:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Delete Article made to help push a book. That makes it a ad. Plus considering it's author it's also vanity--M8v2 02:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The use of the word "vanity" in AFD discussions is now discouraged. Please instead use "conflict of interest" per WP:COI. Jpeob 12:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete notability not clear from what was there. Just H 04:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - clear conflict of interest. MER-C 04:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This is absolutely an article to keep, but it should be WIKIFIED! Just because an ed didn't know how to create Wikipedia articles doesn't mean it's not worth having an article on a worthy subject. OBriain 04:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep just notable children's author, and vanity and conflict of interest are no reasons to delete --Steve _(Slf67) ^talk 04:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Prolific children's literature writer, for both print and national TV. --Oakshade 05:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete Not all authors are necessarily notable. The article makes a number of claims including that she wrote for The Hoobs. However, she does not have a writing credit on IMDB [1]. It claims that her book was nominated for the Carnegie Medal. However a search of finalists for the medal does not pull up her name [2]. Finally, The Master of Secrets, the nominated book, has a rather low rating on Amazon.uk [3]. if more substatiation for her notability can be provided I will gladly change my vote. Amazon may not be the best source for sales of UK books so I am open to other sources. WP:COI concerns don't help.Montco 07:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep May need some wikification, but there's no reason to delete the whole thing. Kundor 15:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and clean basically this seems notable and check here for more info...I doubt that this site is directly linked to her. — Seadog 19:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep and clean per above (espcially Seadog). Cbrown1023 22:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete as per Montco. Google News Archive comes up with one reference in The Independent's What's On in London. [4] Gale's Literature Resource Centre claims to have information on 120,000 authors but doesn't have anything on her. If material can be found to establish notability, I would be happy to keep. Capitalistroadster 02:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep She writes under the name of 'Ruth Louise Symes'. Not a very well known author, scoring 174 Ghits, most from sites selling books. Most of her books rank in the six figures per Amazon. Mitigation is per assertion that one of her books has been read out on the BBC, and that some of her books are available in other languages (eg Polish). The most reliable source appears to be the BBC article, which is pretty bare. Her publishers' site contains a bit more info, including a lot of trivia. Ohconfucius 03:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, has published books for Puffin (an imprint of the Penguin Group) and Chicken House (an imprint of Scholastic, the most well-known children's publisher in the industry). --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep per Oakshade, Jeff. Not Jan Mark or Philip Pullman, but Carnegie award-nominated and PAWS drama winner. Published by Penguin and Scholastic. Probably sneaks over the WP:BIO hurdle. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep seems cleaned up now. Rich Farmbrough, 14:09 11 December 2006 (GMT).
• Keep, but still needs some cleanup IMO. JamesMLane t c 07:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• 'Keep after its been given a cleanup.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 20:43, 13 December 2006 (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.