Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shelley Powers

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 of the debate was speedy keep due to clear and overwhelming consensus. --Michael Snow 22:32, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Shelley Powers

This strikes me as a vanity. I'm not sure she is significant enough to have an article either. It reads like a resume.--Esprit15d 16:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep but needs to be restructured to focus more on her work as an author and less, as per nom, as a CV. --Whouk (talk) 16:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Though it is frowned on to edit one's own entry, I have attempted to 'Wikify' the existing entry, as well as preserve a neutral POV. Note that this entry resulted from the following article. Shelleyp 17:35, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, mostly for the reasons that SethF outlines below. Shelly is an influential and talented writer. --Darrylv 17:45, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - voter Darrylv has one edit, this AFD. Samw 14:19, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, she is one of the most insightful tech writers around.
  • Comment - above vote by anonymous user 149.173.6.25 Samw 02:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. As an author of 4 books, she is notable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster 18:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Wikipedia would be a weak tool indeed if pages like this one on Shelley Powers weren't included. Vanity has nothing to do with it
  • Comment - Above vote by anonymous user 69.42.15.161 Samw 02:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It's awfully late at this point to start complaining about short biographical articles on popular bloggers and technologists. If Marc Canter, Kevin Drum, and Kevin Marks all merit entries, then so does Shelley Powers. Radgeek 19:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Shelley is an influential writer and programmer and a very skilled photographer. Kevin Marks 20:27, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - User Kevin Marks has less than 50 edits, but an edit history since April 2005. Samw 14:19, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Meets guidelines for Wikipedia:Criteria_for_inclusion_of_biographies: "Published authors, editors, and photographers who have written books with an audience of 5,000 or more". Also passes "Google Test -- Does the subject get lots of hits on Google". Seth Finkelstein 20:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Commment - User Seth Finkelstein has less than 50 edits, but an edit history since Sept 2004. Samw 14:19, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Shelley's a well-known technologist and blogger who has written Practical RDF for O'Reilly along with several other computer books. She also, if I'm not mistaken, belongs to the group that created RSS 1.0. Rcade 21:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. She's a published author who has sold enough books, and that's sufficient per the guidelines, as Seth pointed out above. DoriSmith 22:48, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - User DoriSmith has 6 edits, but an edit history since Sept 2005. Samw 14:19, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Published author. Doug Pardee 23:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - User Doug Pardee has less than 50 edits, but an edit history since 2003! (That must be a record for fewest edits per month for a still active account!) Samw 14:19, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - WP:BIO states authors with sales of 5,000 merit inclusion. She has an Amazon rank of ~120,000. IMHO, all O'Reilly Media authors deserve a Wikipedia entry. Samw 04:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - I took the liberty of commenting on possible sockpuppets on this AFD and IMHO they are all real users: or someone is patiently taking months to build up sockpuppet accounts. I don't know who Shelley Powers is but she obviously influences "lurkers" on Wikipedia. Shelley, well done! Samw 14:19, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment - Thank you, Samw. I'd like to say it's taken years of training to be able to do this, but in actuality, I've had this ability from birth.Shelleyp 15:24, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment - Samw: What you're seeing is a side effect of Shelley's large online readership and the fact that her entry is part of an ongoing dialogue about whether female technologists like her are adequately represented on Wikipedia. As one of the only voters you didn't consider a possible sockpuppet, I can attest that the votes here appear to be completely legit. Rcade 16:14, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment - Rcade, thanks for the explanation. Shelley, I hope you stay on Wikipedia and contribute your manifest writing talent. Samw 02:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. She is a well-known technology author, an articulate advocate for women's presence and visibility in technological fields, and a popular weblogger. These clearly fit the Wikipedia:Criteria_for_inclusion_of_biographies. Akma
  • Comment - User Akma has had 6 edits, but an edit history since June 2005.
• Keep. Being a published author is enough, and all those other things only help her case. Paul Morriss
  • Comment - User Paul Morriss only has 1 edit, this AFD. Samw 14:19, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment - True, but I also edited Evangelical and High Wycombe before I had an account. Paul Morriss
• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Author of several books published by O'Reilly. u p p l a n d 17:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep; the sock/meat-puppets army coming from the subject's blog makes me really want the article deleted. Unfortunately, said subject meets WP:BIO. - Liberatore(T) 17:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment; being called a "meat puppet" is probably not a pleasant first experience with editing wikipedia. Thanks for scaring off a bunch of potential contributors. Tlogmer ^{Talk / Contributions} 21:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep; same reasons as akma. (To save samw some time: 8 edits since October 2005; and yes, discussion on Shelley's blog delurked me here.) --Jkew 17:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, despite the sock puppet army.Gateman1997 17:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Important published author. -- JJay 18:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. O'Reilly is hardly a vanity publishing house. She is more notable than, say, KaDee Strickland who got a featured article! -- MisterHand 18:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Weak delete. I really don't believe that authoring a how-to technology book makes one a notable author. We might as well have articles for writers of toaster manuals. Flyboy Will 18:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep - notability is debatable, but the visit from the Meatpuppet Army is making me hesitant to support the retention of the article. B.Wind 19:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: WP:BIO provides criteria for (among other things) published authors that clearly cover Shelley Powers' biographical article. This isn't a popularity contest or a forum for indulging one's pique at the numerous readers of her writing online expressing support for her inclusion. Radgeek 01:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Published Author should be sufficient reason. Additionally, her prominence as a writer online makes her an obvious inclusion.Mariushendrik 21:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - I am most definitely not a sock puppet created by a browser of the linked site. But this woman has four published O'Reilly books for Chrissakes! O'Reilly! --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 21:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Author with books published by reputable major publisher. FCYTravis 23:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• keep looks notable enough for the guidelines. Man, there are more puppets here than on The Sooty Show. Grutness...wha? 00:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
  • See the talk page. I don't think these are sock puppets Samw 02:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I'm not familiar with Shelley Powers, but she has published multiple books with a recognized publisher. (User Metropolitan90 has 1,634 edits since May 2005.) --Metropolitan90 04:15, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I agree with Metropolitan90 (except that I have even more edits, nyah nyah). JamesMLane 06:31, 22 December 2005 (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.