Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michelle Ferguson-Cohen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 Nom withdrew Afd. I'm not completely sold on her being notable, but Sbowers3 has shown enough that I am willing to give the article a second chance. It does need to be cleaned up and many of those non-trivial links need to bye bye, but that's not for AfD.Balloonman (talk) 03:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Michelle Ferguson-Cohen

Michelle Ferguson-Cohen (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Michelle Ferguson-Cohen is a non-notable person who has been spamming the Military Brat article for quite some time with her self published books. This article was written by User:Booksforbrats---which happens to be Ferguson's trademark. Her (auto)-bio it indicates, "Ferguson-Cohen established publishing company Little Redhaired Girl Publishing company to publish and distribute her titles internationally." In other words, the books are self published. Little Redhaired Girl had about 412 hits on Google and according to the companies profile only publishes these two books. Amazon ranks her books as numbers 445,291, 95,751 looks like this book moved up 350K this week---but at that level it probably means she sold a book or two---and in 2 hours she's dropped down 25,000 spaces and 2,262,453 on their list of top sellers. Also, note how she has included herself as being featured by and a contributor to the "Complete Idiot's Guide to Jokes." I suspect that she might have a brief passage or a joke in the book, but I couldn't validate this on any website.Balloonman (talk) 07:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Littleteddy (roar!) 13:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - Ridiculous COI issues. Littleteddy (roar!) 13:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - vanity nonsense --Orange Mike | Talk 13:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Neither her nor the books are notable, and most of the page reads like an advert for the books. Alberon (talk) 14:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Whopping great claims, none of them sourced. NN/vanity all over the shop Plutonium27 (talk) 16:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I am not Michelle Ferguson-Cohen and hope you do not consider my contributions to be spam. The website for the book series is www.booksforbrats.com. It is not little redhaired girl. I'm not sure of the statistics for the website. They are distributed via Amazon, Barnes & Noble, Environments, Baker & Taylor and Borders. As well as being distributed to governmental and FRG orgs. It appears the book's ranking are distributing throughout several editions. While her bibliography is not extensive, the entry is in honor of her pioneering work on behalf of the military community. She is akin to Mary Edwards Wertsch, except on the literary side instead of academic. The two books she authored and published happened to be the very first children's picture books for the minority community of military brats. They specifically help children coping with deployment of a parent. While many who are not in the military community may consider this "vanity", this was a major milestone for children in the military community. It's not unusual to recognize the author and publisher for her contributions. This entry has also been selected for inclusion in the Military History project and her linguistic reclaimation of the term "Brat" being used commercially was included in the Military Brats entry. The Complete Idiot's Guide to Jokes is an anthology of 200 working comedians that includes material from Ferguson-Cohen. I do not think it is relevant to the entry and have deleted it. The complete list of contributors is not available online. User:JSane 14 March 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 23:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
No offense, but comparing her to Mary Edwards Wertsch is just laughable. And lest you think that I am unfamiliar with the military brat, please note who the principle author is on all of the articles on military brats.Balloonman (talk) 06:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
It should also be noted, that you make the claim that This entry has also been selected for inclusion in the Military History project and her linguistic reclaimation of the term "Brat" being used commercially was included in the Military Brats entry. Inclusion in the military history project does not confir notability (any article making the claim to the military is included. And her presence in the Military Brat article is consistently removed as non-notable spam.Balloonman (talk) 07:53, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep I realize this is not necessarily a democratic process and you are superior to me in the heirarchy, but I will also try addressing the criteria you are using and some of facts to ensure their accuracy, since accuracy is important to you. Of course, I never disputed your knowledge of military brats, but this is also an article about an author of books for young children. Your first contribution to this article was a request for deletion 2 days ago. I would be very curious to hear from other contributors who made positive contributions to this entry before it is deleted. Obviously, I'm not the first person to contribute here.
I'm not offended, but confused, a childrens book can be just as important to a community as an academic work. To suggest Ferguson-Cohen's contributions are "laughable" is a bit harsh and sounds personal. In fact, giving a voice to the young children in the community was a major shift and these books were the first to become avaialable to librarians, though many followed. Please note that the author has been included in a a multitude of press and government articles on military brats, some of which have been deleted from this article.
Many early childhood educators and psychologists have noted these books in their work. For many children and people who serve children in the military community, seeing a military brat featured in a children's book was a huge turning point. It's relevant that this minority population was finally represented in the commercial media.
I am not the only person who has contributed information on Ferguson-Cohen's use of the term Brats in the Military Brats article. In fact, I am a recent contributor and there have been lots of prior entries. I don't see all of them being made by "Booksforbrats" as indicated above.
Before besmirching "self-published" authors, you should know Mary Edwards Wertsch is also the owner of Brightwell Publishing which publishes her books, the same way Little Redhaired Publishing does for Ferguson-Cohen's books. On the childrens book front, Sandra Boynton is another childrens book author many of my colleagues consider important. She owns most of her own publishing rights and has her own publishing company. Upon checking her Boynton's web statistics. Her website does not receive many hits. This concept of being "self-published" does not appear to prevent her from having an auto article on Wiki. Christopher Paolini the author of Eragon "self-published" his book. There is a great article by a childrens publishing professional about the outdated notion of referring to "self-publishing" as vanity press here. "Vanity Press" authors are not able to assess and mass produce inventory [[1]]. It might interest you to know that Beatrix Potter's The Adventures of Peter Rabbit was "self-published" [[2]]. But since so many self-published authors have auto articles in Wiki. I wonder if this criteria only relevant to this author and this article?
As for the relevance of the criteria, big publishing corporations bet on books they believe will be commercially viable hoping a few will return big profits. Unlike small publishing houses or "self-publishers" as you call them, major publishing corporations use agressive distribution and marketing strategies and often inflate their sales figures. They are not motivated by the importance of the art, just the impact of their actions on tehir stock prices. I am not sure why the decisions of this corporate elite is the standards by which Wiki decides importance or relevance. The importance of Ferguson-Cohen's actions and her titles, were that her small company forced big publishers to recognize this market and readership as valid. Several big publishers quickly pushed out similar books after seeing the success of Ferguson-Cohen's titles and the potential market she revealed in the military community.
Since sales numbers seem important to you. I wanted to be sure they are correct. Also, I would never deny Wertsch's importance to the community though her book only ranks at #858,905 in Amazon. I double checked Amazon and Daddy, You're My Hero!- 0972926445 is currently listed in the sales rank at #66,387 (I believe your ranking refers to an earlier edition). Mommy, You're My Hero! is at #556,089. Based on your criteria the small number of children whose mother's are soldiers might make the book irrelevant, but I disagree, that's like suggesting childrens books for Native Americans are unimportant. Jingle Dancer a similar childrens picture book for Native American children is ranked at #64,577 in Amazon. It's author Cynthia Leitich Smith has an autobiographical article on Wikipedia. Ian Falconer's book Olivia is listed at #1,607,506. Gary Soto writes books for Latino children (He is also a poet) and his most popular children's title is listed at #315,319 in Books.
Amazon is by no means the only place these books are sold. I know Operation Military Kids (also noted in Military Brats) uses these books, as do many FRGs, schools and military daycares, so you know people are buying them direct instead of retail.These numbers are not bad considering they were released 7 years ago and there are less than 1 million military brats in this readership range. Most major publishing companies consider any book that sells 10k a success. Clearly there are more than that in the marketplace.
The only negative comment in any entry about the author I could find aside from yours had no Author signature. It was also factually inaccurate, suggesting these were not the first commercially published books. Since I cannot prove a negative, perhaps you can cite the source that indicates an children's picture book that was commerically published earlier.
Daddy, You're My Hero! won the first children's book award from the Military Writers Society of America. [3]
Additional references found via a simple Google search show the author to be very "notable". See numerous references added to the artice including feature stories on the books and interviews with the author in Stars & Stripes, The Washington Times, The Colorado Springs, Knight Ridder Tribune News Service (Picked up by Chicago Honolulu Advertiser, Tribune Arizon Republic, etc.), and Fox News amongst others. I also found numerous academic and medical sources. --JSane (talk) 21:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
A news article where the author cited Michelle (and another author) about the rise in popularity of books on military brats. The article includes, The National Military Family Association’s Web site now lists 28 books “for children living the military life.” Are the authors of all of those books notable?
Short "book review"---should note that the "book review" uses the same language as is found in other articles--eg it looks more like a press release.Balloonman (talk) 05:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Entirety of section dealing with Michelle or her books, Daddy You're My Hero and Mommy You're My Hero, By Michelle Ferguson-Cohen, Published by Little Redhaired Girl Publishing (www.booksforbrats.net): A book designed to help kids (ages 4-8) deal with deployment of their father or motherBalloonman (talk) 05:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
A list of books dealing with military/deployment of the parents. This does nothing to establish notability of the author--unless you content that every other author on this list meets notability. Oh wait, this is the list of books referenced above!Balloonman (talk) 05:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
List of books, with a short description of These board books address deployment from a child’s viewpoint in a comforting, reassuring way. Recommended by the Military Child Education Coalition, DoD Dependent Elementary and Secondary Schools, Iraq War Veterans Organization, USAA, and the American Press Institute. A good way of encouraging discussion about and pride in the military parent's service. 2002 Balloonman (talk) 05:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Have to sign up for this one...Balloonman (talk) 05:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
No reference to Michelle or the books.Balloonman (talk) 05:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
The entirety of the reference: If you know a young child whose mother or father has been sent overseas, you may want to know about this story book for children by Michelle Ferguson-Cohen. It comes in two versions, "Daddy, You're My Hero," and "Mommy, You're My Hero." Amazon.com also has other books for kids whose parents are deployed.Balloonman (talk) 05:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Apparently she was interviewed on a radio program. The nature or context of said interview is unknown, this was a press release/schedule of upcoming radio shows. This was also a few months before the release of her second book, thus it may have been part of her publicity campaign?Balloonman (talk) 05:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Article about an upcoming book. Remember The immediately preceding criterion excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.Balloonman (talk) 05:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
The entirety of the section dealing with Michelle, Michelle Ferguson-Cohen first created her Books for Brats children’s books five years ago. Since then, The Washington Times has called them “Dr. Seuss for military brats.” One is called Daddy, You’re My Hero! and the other, Mommy, You’re My Hero!. Also check out her website for e-cards and other goodies for educators and parents.
A blog, thus not a reliable source. But the two sentences in the blog essentially said that a volunteers kid was familiar with her book.Balloonman (talk) 05:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Again a list of books, this does not establish notability, it only confirms that the books actually exist.Balloonman (talk) 05:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Mini bio of Michelle as she was apparently invited to Ft Benning for some event. I should note that *I* have a bio online of comparable length for an event where I've been asked to be the guest speaker, but that does not make me notable.Balloonman (talk) 05:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
The extent of this website, Michelle Ferguson-Cohen first created her Books for Brats children’s books five years ago. Since then, The Washington Times has called them “Dr. Seuss for military brats.” One is called Daddy, You’re My Hero! and the other, Mommy, You’re My Hero!. Also check out her website for e-cards and other goodies for educators and parents.Balloonman (talk) 05:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


  • Keep - Putting aside Balloonman personal issues with Booksforbrats I would like to point the following:
    • Michelle Ferguson-Cohen is reasonably known in the military community especially in the world of educators and librarians. I think the article provides multiple references – so I will not repeat them here.
    • Michelle Ferguson-Cohen is especially recognized for writing a book for children of mothers-soldiers.
    • The fact that Balloonman is a contributor to the Military Brat article does not make him an expert on this topic.
    • Please refer to [[4]] before suggesting this drastic step here. It specifically states that deletions should not be made based on personal dislike (“non-notable person who has been spamming ….” -sounds like a personal attack to me especially when no proof is provided). The policy also recommends that pages that can be improved should not be nominated for deletion (perhaps Balloonman can help there?).
    • Please refer to [[5]] as to what consists of a notable author. Ferguson-Cohen is clearly a notable author - see multiple references and reviews in article.

--RageNot (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Note, this is Ragenot's first and only edit. A few articles does not notability make. Being the author of a book in the top 500,000 and top 2 million on Amazon's list does not meet WP:BIOBalloonman (talk) 02:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - Wiki defines a multiple criteria for notability and Ferguson-Cohen meets a few (for WP:BIO: several independent secondary source material – some in depth). I did not find Amazon ranking as one of the criteria, is this Balloonman own definition? Notably, at the time I am writing these lines Ferguson-Cohen is ranked #52,068 on Amazon for [Daddy you’re My Hero] something that Balloonman for some reason misrepresents. I must admit that I feel silly even bringing it up – since it is ridiculous to assume that sales on one retail website (or total sales for that matter) are the only measure for notability. One can easily find other authors, even very famous authors (including some of Balloonman favorites) with significantly lower ranking – which BTW constantly change over time. As for a “few articles does not notability make” – I disagree, I see that JSane added more than a few, and I think that Balloonman has a Yoda complex (truthfully, I actually liked the anastrophe :)). Again – this is a very narrow read of wiki standards. --RageNot (talk) 04:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Striking !vote as duplicate to above. Also, watch out for WP:Civil, personal attacks are not appreciated on wikipedia.Balloonman (talk) 04:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Note:
Notability is not a subjective concept on Wiki. According to Wikipedia:Notability Wiki requires the following to meet Basic Criteria: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." The author has clearly establihed notability based on that criteria. She also meets the Additional Criteria established by Wiki as an author and Creative Professional, having "originating a significant new concept" a commercially published children's picture book to help kids coping with deployment of a parent in the military.
All material in this article has a reliable, published source as per Wikipedia:Citing_sources
Also, your Amazon facts are incorrect. You continue to insist that Daddy, You're My Hero is ranked 2million and have now repeated that inaccurate fact twice without citing a source. The book is clearly ranked at #46,561.

I normally wouldn't spend so much time commenting, but I after receiving the notice of deletion, I devoted a great deal of time researching references and addressing comments made regarding criteria for deletion, assuming they would be responded to with respect and logic. This deletion demand is Ballonman's first and only contribution to this article. I would respectfully request that Ballonman please cite his sources in further statements given his erroneous and baseless comments so far.

I'm unsure what the 'Military Brats' article has to do with this author's autobiography, Balloonman claims the author has been "spamming" the Military Brats article. Upon inspection of its history, I see that nobody under the author's name or 'Booksforbrats' as you claim has "spammed" or even made a contribution to the Military Brats article. In fact, Balloonman has made a majority of contributions and virtually all of the edits. Please cite a source for your accusations that the author has "spammed" 'Military Brats'. It's important to be careful when making potentially unfounded accusations and slanderous comments about article subjects as per Wiki standards.

I see that 'Booksforbrats' initiated this article, but I do not see any further contributions. However, I see a variety of contributions from authentic authors that I would not dare discredit. --JSane (talk) 04:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Balloonman, Please cite your sources for this statement. "Amazon ranks her books as numbers 445,291, 95,751 looks like this book moved up 350K this week---but at that level it probably means she sold a book or two and 2,262,453 on their list of top sellers." OMK alone has purchased thousands through their chapters and grant sourcing, please see cited reference in article. If you continue to make these sorts of remarks you are vergining on contentious or slanderous remarks that require citation as per Wiki policy. From "Daddy, You're My Hero!" Amazon.com Sales Rank: #46,561 in Books (See Bestsellers in Books)

Popular in these categories:

  1. 20 in Books > Children's Books > Educational > Explore the World > Fiction > United States
  2. 99 in Books > Children's Books > People & Places > Family Life > Parents > Fiction

--JSane (talk) 04:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I saw your link, and you do have a link that has a lower level than the one that I provided---But before you start threatening with legal action please check the links I provided which clearly showed the 2.2 million-rather than claim that I didn't provide a link. AS for her rankings in those convoluted categories... that's irrelevant as she is still non-notable.Balloonman (talk) 06:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Sorry Balloonman for the Yoda reference - this was intended in good humor - but i am sorry if i offended you. As you pointed out i am new to wiki and still learning the ettiquete. I would also ask that in return you be both civil to me and to others (especially the subject of this article - "sold a book or two"?????) --RageNot (talk) 04:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Doing your work for you Balloonman. That 95,751 Ranking is the Mommy, You're My Hero! Title. The Daddy, You're My Hero! Title is at #46,561. I'm still not sure what accounting you used to come up with "one or two books" sold, but it doesn't appear to be cited or even relevent to the aritcle. Please make an effort to contribute factual information instead of subjective attacks that are not relevant to the article's status. You also have still not proposed a reason for deletion as per Wiki standards that meet deletion criteria. If you still wish to have this page deleted, edit the page to include your reasoning as part of the code in the "reason" field as per Wiki standards, instead of just offering subjective and unsubstantiated remarks.--JSane (talk) 05:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Again Jane, name calling is unbecoming. *I* have provided links about the rankings. All you have to do is look at the provided links above. But her low ranking isn't the reason for my nomination to delete, it's her non-notability. As for the fact that this is my first time to edit said article, that doesn't matter. But the fact that you and RageNot are wp:SPA does. Neither of you have edited outside of Michelle. You have about 60 edits total and Ragenot has 4 Everyone of your edits deals with Michelle---which explains why you may feel as if she meets WP:N when she doesn't.Balloonman (talk) 05:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] linkspam

I should warn people who review the article now, that the article now has scores of references---but they are mostly in the same vein as cited above---very short without establishing notability. Many of the links simply reaffirm what we already know, that Michelle has written two books. They do not meet the criteria in wp:BOOK or WP:BIO for establishing notability. I suspect that before this is through, that EVERY page that mentions Michelle will be linked to the article.Balloonman (talk) 06:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

  • I'm not going to post because my entries continue to be vandalized. Many of my contributions to this page have been spammed, deleted and changed by Balloonman. Very scary to have someone edit your input like this under your own signature. The abusive posts above are nothing but vandalism. Last I checked journalists who wrote feature articles for The Washington Times, Colorado Springs Gazette, Fox News or Knight Ridder were not authors of "reprinted press releases". This has gotten completely out of line and Balloonman is not allowing civil discourse or relevant contributions. I have spent enough time here already and can't tolerate this vandalism. I'll leave this to the pros and administrators. How sad though, this article has been hijacked by someone who is not interested in objective editing. --JSane (talk) 07:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Errr, let's see, I added a critique of the links you provided... where there was none... and then you undid *MY* edit where I signed my critique of the edits. To which I reverted your edit as you were vandalizing what I had said. I then gave you a warning on your page---and now you claim that I edited your words? Please show me where I have changed a single word of yours? ANY link will do? Oh yeah, undoing your vandalism does not count. If you want to respond to my critique, you can, but you cannot delete/change words.Balloonman

(talk) 19:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

  • If you would like to contest the references made in my post on this delete page, or contest any other contribution in my post on this page, please do so in a post of your own instead of editing the words in my post. It is inappropriate to edit my posts on the delete page with my signature as you continue to do. You are welcome to your say, but please don't manipulate my words. Was it you that put a strike through Ragenot's "Keep" header too?I would never do that to any other editors post. It's not good ettiquette and it's misleading to others. Also asking that you cite sources is not "name calling". --JSane (talk) 20:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
No but warning me of slander and saying that I am misrepresenting something, when I have provided facts to the contrary is. Yes, our facts were at odds with one another, which I admitted to, but you continue to say that I am misrepresenting facts. Also, I have not edited ANY words of yours, whereas you have blatantly rewritten what I have said.Balloonman (talk) 20:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - Subject appears to precisely meet WP:BIO#Basic criteria:

    A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability

That is exactly what I see. The depth of coverage is not substantial but much more than trivial and I see multiple independent sources. Furthermore, the books meet criterion 1 of WP:Notability (books). Sbowers3 (talk) 20:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Er, criteria 1 reads, the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself ... The immediately preceding criterion excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book. So far, we haven't been presented with any non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book. If you click on the links, you will find that for the most part the links are very trivial in their coverage of Michelle or the books---I quoted the entirety of several of them above! How can one say that a list of books is more than trivial? Or that a page that reads, in entirety, Daddy You're My Hero and Mommy You're My Hero, By Michelle Ferguson-Cohen, Published by Little Redhaired Girl Publishing (www.booksforbrats.net): A book designed to help kids (ages 4-8) deal with deployment of their father or mother is not trivial? I am supposing that the links SJANE provided above are the best examples establishing notability---in which case they are woefully wanting. If she could show some non-trivial references that are independent of the Author/publisher, I would be happy to reconsider. But NONE of the links above or that I looked at on the article last night do so.Balloonman (talk) 21:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
The first two references (Notes) are the Fayetteville Observer and The Washington Times. (Not all, but enough, of Wash Times article is available for free.) They are independent and non-trivial. Sbowers3 (talk) 21:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Then there is Stars and Stripes, and Fox News. You looked at the article last night; I'm looking right now. l see more than enough and I haven't gone through half of them. Sbowers3 (talk) 21:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


Articles now cited:
The first two articles are the only one's that come close to establishing any notability. The rest are garbage. THe first link, the Fayetteville Gazette, doesn't do much except to indicate that a reporter called her for an interview. We can find two articles on plenty of people/authors/activists/etc that are not notable. As for the other links currently used as citations (which amounts to mostly OR):
To support the claim that "Sought out by the press as an expert in the military community" the article provides two links. One is, in entirety: Little Redhaired Girl Publishing, whose “Books for Brats” children’s storybooks for military families came out last year, is offering Mother’s Day e-cards on its Web site. The other link is the schedule for a radio program called "positive parenting," but we don't know if that was a where the radio program reached out to her, or as part of her advertising campaign for her book as it is simply a schedule with no details.
To support the claim that "recommended by many educational and child development experts" the article list pages that have lists of books where her book is listed [6][7] [8]---but no substance, thus trivial in coverage.
To support the claim that "convey coping skills to small children faced with separation from their parents." Several sources are cited, most are merely lists of books, the two most comprehensive entries about Michelle's books was Daddy, You’re My Hero and Mommy, You’re my Hero, By Michelle Ferguson-Cohen (Little Redhaired Girl Publishing, 2005) These board books address deployment from a child’s viewpoint in a comforting, reassuring way.} The Second being, Books for Brats www.otonomimedia.com/book A “self-professed” Army brat is publishing timely storybooks for children who are waving goodbye to parents in the military. The two titles are Daddy, You’re My Hero or Mommy, You’re My Hero. Thus, all of these links are trivial in nature.Balloonman (talk) 21:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I'll admit, those two references are better sources than the stuff currently cited in the article or on this AFD page....Balloonman (talk) 21:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I've asked for several {{fact}} on the page. If we can get some of the assertions verified, then I will withdraw my opposition to this article.Balloonman (talk) 23:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
  • FYI: Wiki Standards Deletion policy states that: Disputes over page content are not dealt with by deleting the page. --72.229.10.154 (talk) 00:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  • FYI: This is not a dispute over page content---this is a dispute about whether or not she is notable and meets the criteria for an article. I've given you the opportunity to prove me wrong... provide reliable independent sources to substantiate the claims made in the article, and I'll pull my nom. If you can't substantiate the claims, then my contention that she is non-notable stands. It's your opportunity to prove me wrong. Content disputes are when you are arguing the content, not the existence of an article!Balloonman (talk) 01:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Sufficient notability has been established as per Wiki Standards. Don't take my word for it. See other editors above and comments in history. --72.229.10.154 (talk) 01:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Non-trivial references

These are the references that I think are non-trivial and demonstrate notability:

Some of these require purchase but the lead paragraph (for free) strongly suggests that the article is a non-trivial reference. The two book reviews are short but together with everything else count for something.

The article does have a ton of trivial references and I don't blame anyone for thinking that all are like that but separating the wheat from the chaff I do think the above articles are more than enough to demonstrate notability. Sbowers3 (talk) 01:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Sbowers, thanks so much for all your editing assistance and recommendations. As you suggested, I compiled all the references and links under one category and reduced the duplicates. Let me know if this is what you meant. --JSane (talk) 03:30, 17 March 2008 (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.