Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Raymond Cunningham

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. Lots and lots of single purpose !votes here, which are in this case, discounted as probable conflicts of interest. Consensus says delete. --- Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sarah Raymond Cunningham

Sarah Raymond Cunningham (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Promotional article is full of external links. Please peruse these 58 g-hits for any sign of notability. Prodded a while back. Blast Ulna (talk) 03:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

• Weak keep Amazon has some of her publications, and it's more than one (albeit only a few). I think that's notable enough for inclusion. JeremyMcCracken (talk) 03:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  • No, it's not, check Wikipedia:Notability (books) and Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Creative professionals. Blast Ulna (talk) 03:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment: however please note the codicil that leads off the section: "Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included." I need to do more research before casting a "vote" but I needed to point this out. Note also it's a guideline and not a policy, and therefore is not set in stone. Whether this applies to Cunningham, I do not know. 23skidoo (talk) 05:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment just being on Amazon is definitely not a sign of notability, but GNews shows a published interview with her and a brief review of her book: [1][2]. Most people aren't referred to by their middle name, so just plugging "Sarah Raymond Cunningham" into a search engine and saying "58 ghits, delete" isn't very convincing; for example, both of those articles just call her "Sarah Cunningham". cab (talk) 05:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I am open to better searches. Given that the first source is an interview in Christianity Today and the second a brief review in the Dallas Morning News, does that meet WP:BIO? Blast Ulna (talk) 13:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
• Strong delete very much a promotional piece. also fails WP:BIO. notability standard for authors is fairly high. --- Taroaldo (talk) 06:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep I find her interesting, and she has some work in publication. Granted the article can use some work. Popularity or being famous is secondary on the quoted guideline per the nomination. AlbinoFerret (talk) 13:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
• delete One book and some work in publication is not notability for an author. DGG (talk) 03:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
• STRONG keep Looks like the page needed some updating. Searches turned up proof of further writing projects and notability since original page creation.Brewedgold (talk) 14:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, DGG. Eusebeus (talk) 15:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep as verfiable and sufficiently notable for Wikipedia. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - unless this can be rewritten to show notability it has to go--Cailil ^talk 18:41, 28 March 2008)
• KEEP - This author is new to the religion/culture scene in the past few years, but is already well-recognized amongst this audience.StageMic (talk) 14:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• KEEP This article has had several recent modifications which help establish notability. Internet searches produce proof of position in faith arena and more links that could be added to improve this page.SuperRedr (talk) 14:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep I searched Google Blog Search for references to Dear Church: Letters From a Disillusioned Generation, www.dearchurch.com, Sarah Cunningham and Sarah Raymond Cunningham. She's definitely notable. No question.Marginx (talk) 18:23, 5 April 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.