Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glenda Green

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 keep. John254 02:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glenda Green

No actual evidence of notability; when you remove all the unsourced assertions and peacock words from the lede, there's almost nothing left. Sources have been requested, but not provided (unless you count a link to a YouTube of her talking.) Orange Mike 02:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: For now; those unverified claims need to be sourced or removed, but there are a few other references. Seems notable enough. - Rjd0060 03:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - Sourcing has been requested; none has been forthcoming, for months in some cases. I waited quite some time for them before making this AfD. --Orange Mike 03:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that but there are some references listed. Unfortunately they cannot easily be verified as they are print sources (opposed to web), but they are listed. - Rjd0060 04:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These references, with no page number or other information, are no substitute for an actual in-line citation backing up her claims that constitute assertions of notability. --Orange Mike 13:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. —David Eppstein 04:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 04:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Most of the info comes from her biography which has been posted by other sites. I would like to see a more critical examination of her life, rather than the self promotion. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 05:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She is absolutely notable - author of a best-selling Chrostian book. It does need better sourcing and other improvements. Pgc512 16:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comment "author of a best-selling Chrostian book"? Her advocates have claimed this, but there's never been any effort to substantiate the allegation. --Orange Mike 17:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Everything checked out by doing a Google search, you could have done the same searches. My only problem is that "best seller" isn't defined. It can be the best seller of that particular publisher and be true. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 18:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply - A lot of what you've put in is from advertisements, and does not meet the need for reliable sources. Most of this still has no real sourcing. --Orange Mike 18:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From Amazon [[1]]:

21 in Books > Religion & Spirituality > Christianity > Jesus
31 in Books > Religion & Spirituality > Religious Studies > Theology
37 in Books > Biographies & Memoirs > Leaders & Notable People > Religious

Pgc512 19:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- That's really straining, to produce such a small gnat; badly fails to meet our standards here. --Orange Mike 19:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are confusing verifiability with notability. She is notable because she has two books published on her retrospectives, and has an autobiography, and appears in a book of American artists. Using her own PR material is for verification, not notability. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not all books are reliable sources. You cannot achieve verifiability from autobiographical self-advertisement. --Orange Mike 19:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now you are confusing truth with verifiability. A resume is verifiable, but not always the truth. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having the 21st best-selling book on Jesus when it is almost 10 years old --- that deserves an article. If not, then a LOT of pages need to be deleted. I think cleaning it up is the issue, not deletion. Pgc512 20:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Why was this article nominated. It clearly notable. The women is all over the shop. The article needs lots of work though. scope_creep 21:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep There are some unreliable sources in the article. But the source to a book to amazon.com is a good one and the subject seems notable. Chris! _ct 22:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable as author, but not as artist. Johnbod 14:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.