Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susan Clancy

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 no consensus, kept. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 07:22, Feb. 11, 2006

[edit] Susan Clancy

Seems to be primarily known for one book, article created by anon, does not link to or from anything else in WP. Despite the fact that I may look this book up myself, I'll have to call WP:VANITY on it and vote delete. SarekOfVulcan 05:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Ardenn 07:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Article is about Clancy's theory rather than a discussion of the notability of the author herself. WP:BIO refers.  (aeropagitica)  13:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Prodego ^talk 15:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Obvious/Speedy keep, irresponsible nomination, even if the article may be lousy. Notable author whose work is viewed as significant by reputable sources. [1] [2] Roughly 10,000 Google hits for a Harvard University Press book published near the end of 2005 ought to demonstrate notability. Editors who make and support nominations like this, without making the slightest effort to check out the subject(s) involved, are more damaging to Wikipedia than garden-variety vandals, and should be discouraged more strongly. Monicasdude 15:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Apparently 217 Ghits rather than 10,000. We should all assume good faith. Dlyons493 Talk 17:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Response. [3] gives close to 10,000 hits, and a spot check in the first few hundred had every one I checked out referring to the book or the research underlying it. Too many AfDs are justified by ineptly framed Google searches; just because you can find a way to search that produces a low number of results proves nothing. And why didn't you assume good faith about my search comments? WP:AGF is not a mantra to invoke to deflect opinions or comments you disapprove of. Monicasdude 18:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment That search give 299 Ghits. And I wasn't commenting on your good faith. Dlyons493 Talk 18:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment -- Actually, I did look at Google. That's how I determined "primarily known for one book".--SarekOfVulcan 05:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Author of a single book, with a 25% non-duplication rate from Google (=2400 or so hits, mostly stock-in-trade references) doesn't scream notability. I would perhaps be tempted to give it the benefit of the doubt if the article weren't so poor. As it stands, delete this. Eusebeus 19:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. 924 Google hits for "Susan Clancy" alien to weed out other Susan Clancys see [4].

She also does well on a Google scholar search [5]. Capitalistroadster 20:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and cleanup. Does very well on Lexis Nexis academic search; has appeared on NPR, her book was reviewed in the New York Times, and wrote an article in the (London) Times Higher Education Supplement. [6]. Bad ideas 05:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Capitalistroadster and Bad ideas; widely reviewed book by major press; Amazon rank ca. 19,000-- not sure if this means 5,000 sales guideline is likely to have been met.--MayerG 05:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• keep. alien abductionists want to hide this from you ;-). -- Waveguy 06:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and clean up. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 09:28, 10 February 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.