Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marion van de Wetering

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. Being married to someone notble or having written two regional history books of unclear notability is not a valid notability claim. Also, the article has no reliable sources except for one regarding her marriage. MaxSem 06:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Marion van de Wetering

Marion van de Wetering (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

The article is completely unsourced. A google search doesn't come up with any noteworthy information about this person, beyond the fact that her 2 books are actually for sale. Atlan (talk) 18:34, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep: And tag for sources. - Rjd0060 19:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. No sign of notability, and having a notable husband and uncle doesn't provide it. Citation tags have been added in the past, without being addressed; prod tag was removed by an anon. I can't even find a single review of either of her books online, so they can't be very notable. Deor 19:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I didn't look into it but by the nom's comment, it seems he can assert that she actually has published books which are for sale. - Rjd0060 19:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I see that her books are for sale, but she doesn't meet the standards of WP:BIO, which requires that there be multiple, independent, reliable sources about her. I was just pointing out that she can't be considered notable as the author of two books that themselves lack notability. Deor 19:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Anyone can write a book and put it up for sale. That in itself does not make one notable.--Atlan (talk) 20:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Her books were published by a major Canadian publisher, Dundurn. If people can't research a bio, they should try harder rather than just kill the entry. If Wikipedia is simply all about what's on Google, why shouldn't people just use Google?209.217.75.209 22:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Notability is not inherited. Thus, neither the publisher her books were released under, nor her being the neice of a notable person, make her notable. Kesh 23:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
• MergeDelete While I can't agree with the description of Dundurn as a major Canadian publisher (van de Wetering was published under their Hounslow imprint), I will say that they publish some very fine and significant books. That said, whether the subject is self-published, published by Dundurn, or published by Random House is of no consequence as the article makes no assertion of notability. In short, it provides no indication that van de Wetering has "been the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject", as called for in WP:BIO. If no such references can be found, I suggest that much of the information be added to the article on her husband Mark Bourrie. Victoriagirl 23:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

The Bourrie article already says that she's a law student and names the books she wrote (although the publication dates in the two articles don't match). What additional information do you think needs to be included there? Deor 23:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Apologies, I hadn't bothered rereading the Bourrie article when making the suggestion. I've adjusted my previous comment accordingly. Victoriagirl 23:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Uncertain The book on Ottawa is held by 22 libraries, on Kingston by 13, in World Cat. This includes does not indicate much in the way of notability. Is there any information about sales? about reviews? In these absence of something notable about the books, the mere existence doesn't make for notability. I am a little startled the article has been around so long without such information. 19:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Correction WorldCat does not include Canadian public libraries (unlike for the US) , though it does include academic ones. checking directly, the Kingston public library has 6 copies of the book on it, none of Ottawa. Ottawa has 13 copies of the one on it, and 1 of the Kingston. Toronto p.l. has several copies of each. The 2 medium sized public libraries in Ottawa checked (Kitchener & London) do not seem to have either. Going further afield in some very large public libraries, Winnipeg has a copy of the Ottawa book, Calgary has both. There is a Canadian Union Catalog,[1] but it does not in practice seem to include most public library holdings. I conclude the books are of mainly local interest. I would still like to see some reviews cited, or some sales figures. That might make the difference DGG (talk) 21:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Not famous, but certainly notable to a certain regional audience. Dominic J. Solntseff 21:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC)— Dominic J. Solntseff (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Delete as the only reference is about her marriage to someone notable. Bearian 20:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, her notability comes from her books. There is some serious sexism happening on this page among people who keep referencing back to her husband or believe her identity should be buried in his by merging the entry.Dominic J. Solntseff 19:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Please WP:AGF. It's not sexism on my part, but her books are non-notable, and she has no other cited source of notability. -- Kesh 20:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe not to you. But you might ask why Wikipedia has so many pages on minor punk bands and so few on authors. Books that you haven't read may, in fact, be notable and quite important to others. Dominic J. Solntseff 23:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Your first point is irrelevant. If your second point were true, we'd have verifiable sources of that notability. None have been produced. -- Kesh 23:26, 20 October 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.