Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kathryn Bonella

Add links
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 delete. Jayjg (talk) 01:04, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kathryn Bonella[edit]

Kathryn Bonella (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO. No sources other than own website which can not be used for notability. Copyright issue with http://kathrynbonella.com with possible OTRS pending. Stillwaterising (talk) 22:40, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note Bio page on website seems to have appropiate CC license. - Stillwaterising (talk) 23:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note Wikipedia entry has been updated with several media references supporting notability. - Gamblor72 (talk) 23:55, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Kathryn Bonella is a notable, published author and journalist. She has close ties to the infamous Schapelle Corby and Bali Nine cases. As co-author on Corby's autobiography, information about Bonella is relevant when examining the Corby case. In addition, her role in influence within the Australian media is substantial. - Gamblor72 (talk) 23:55, 16 March 2010 (UTC) In addition, Bonella satisfies WP:CREATIVE on all points. This is evidenced by the references cited in the article. - Gamblor72 (talk) 04:11, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— Gamblor72 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Noted. Thank you. I have added more references to the article to support notability. Gamblor72 (talk) 12:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Regardless of copyright issues, this article clearly violates a number of relevant Wikipedia policies related to misusing articles for advertising and spam. The person responsible for creating the article - no prizes for guessing who that probably is - ignores and deletes relevant comments on their talk page, showing an apparent contempt for engaging in any discussion process on these issues. Afterwriting (talk) 07:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can assure you I am not Kathryn Bonella. I apologise for deleting the talk articles on my page - the issues they pertained to (copyright of original content) were resolved so they were deleted as no longer relevant. Gamblor72 (talk) 12:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Bonella is not currently listed as a producer or associate producer for the American 60 Minutes program. Line-up is here. I would be interested in seeing documentation on this claim. - Stillwaterising (talk) 11:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That would be because she previously worked for 60 Minutes (Australian TV program) (see here), not the American version. WWGB (talk) 12:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated to reflect WWGB statement. Gamblor72 (talk) 12:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete At most she is notable for writing about Corby, twice. Suggest a small addition is made to the Corby page about the legal issues arising from publication, which are the only times that third=party sources have reported on her. Martinlc (talk) 12:31, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
She is a best-selling author in her own right, whose work has significantly influenced public opinion of Schapelle Corby and the topic of Australians/foreigners in prison in Indonesia. Gamblor72 (talk) 23:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An independent reference confirming this claim would be helpful to the article. WWGB (talk) 23:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Book sales figures are not released publicly, so I'm not sure how to reference or include this information. Gamblor72 (talk) 04:29, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Book sales might be referenced in the form of #1 on Non-fiction sales chart as reported in A Newspaper for 12/12/10. But sales is less of an issue. If the books have been influential it should be possible to cite third-party evidence to that effect, in the form of mentions of her/ the books in news or opinion pieces.Martinlc (talk) 09:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep I was just passing by and saw this page. Are you serious? Kathryn Bonella, a best selling author, and you want to delete the page? There must be some sort of agenda here, because it is so ridiculous. I am almost stuck for words. It is a poor reflection of Wikipedia that it is being used like this. AnotherBookReader (talk) 20:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— AnotherBookReader (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Blocked sockpuppet (see below) WWGB (talk) 01:47, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am clearing this yet again. Your abuse and labeling of people as sock puppets because they don't agree with you is offensive. You clearly have a mission and agenda for this.
Am I a sock puppet too? This isn't a club in which in which people are not allowed to participate unless they pass your self imposed test. It is free to edit. Your attempt to subvert democracy are clear.
I urge the Wikipedia admins to investigate these people and take action.— Preceding unsigned comment added by KZb5 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete Unless there are reviews. If she is notable, they will be available. DGG ( talk ) 23:58, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

information Administrator note Per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gamblor72, AnotherBookReader (talk · contribs) and Jmarialee (talk · contribs) have been blocked indefinitely as sock puppets of Gamblor72 (talk · contribs), who has been blocked for 3 days (the remainder of this AFD). –MuZemike 00:29, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, AnotherBookReader (talk · contribs) was banned, but for what? For posting this opinion on this page! And now you strike out that opinion again simply because AnotherBookReader (talk · contribs) was banned for expressing that opinion! It is blatant censorship, driven by a clear agenda. Someone needs to investigate corruption and abuse of Wikipedia on here.
  • Comment Most of the references appear to be just mentioning her in passing, the only news article I'm seeing that directly covers her is here, but I haven't exhausted my search so I'm not !voting yet. VernoWhitney (talk) 02:33, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP THIS PAGE Kathryn is an amazing author and should keep her wiki page. I feel she is being bullied by an independent operator who publishes her own books on the same subject. This is a biased attempt at removing Kathryn's hard work and her wiki presence —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.211.128.20 (talk) 13:48, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— 123.211.128.20 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Kathryn Bonella is a best selling author, so why there is any debate at all about her inclusion here here is beyond me. Here's a link (see No. 3 in the right hand column): http://www.booksellerandpublisher.com.au/thinkaustralian/pdf/4_THINK_07_Bestsellers.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.177.157.135 (talk) 13:56, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— 124.177.157.135 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Keep I see clearly what is happening here. Anyone who sees this delete attempt and realizes how ridiculous and corrupt it is, is labelled a 'sockpuppet' and banned. Anyone who can see the real motive in deleting the page of a best selling author, and voices their opinion on it, is removed from the equation.

Why not just say outright that no-one can voice opinion unless they have a long history of editing? Why not say that casual browsers are not allowed in? That no-one is allowed to post their opinion based on them seeing something which is obviously insidious and wrong?

I guess you will ban me too. Fine, because I really don't want to be part of a your gang. This sort of Wikipedia abuse should be exposed. Wikipedia should also stop selling itself as objective, because deleting pages like this one shows that it isn't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PassingBy5 (talk • contribs) 15:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just how many people are you going to ban here? Good old censorship. You can vote, but only if you vote to delete. What a sham. Wikipedia is a disgrace. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PassingBy5 (talk • contribs) 15:34, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— PassingBy5 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

As I said above, sales are not really the point. If she is a well-known author whose work has influenced public debate, it should be easy to find reliable third-party sources which comment on her work or review her books. If, as seems to be the case, she is only Notable for One Event (ie her writing about Corby), she would come under WP:1E, hence delete. It is up to those who believe that she is independently notable to provide sources to demonstrate it (note that sources are required, not just statements of support). WP has guidance on what it is intended to include; not all living authors meet that test - this is not a criticism or punishment, just a fact.Martinlc (talk) 20:55, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think your reference to Schapelle Corby as Corby makes your position rather clear. A slip of the keyboard, mate, which gives the game away.
It isn't just sales. That is a straw you are clinging to. As others have pointed out, Kathryn Bonella is notable for all sorts of reasons. Her books are notable similarly.
The efforts to remove the page have nothing to do with its value, and everything to do with a pretty nasty agenda. KZb5 (talk) 18:30, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— KZb5 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • KEEP THIS PAGE Kathryn is an amazing author and producer: Kathryn's work

http://www.orthodontist.com.au/content/transcript.jsp

http://www.aso.org.au/downloads/60_Mins_Wexler74%20pages.pdf

http://www.christophervvparnell.com/tv_interviews.html

http://www.sixtyminutes.ninemsn.com/stories/contributors/259122/60-minutes-151-25-years

http://sixtyminutes.ninemsn.com.au/article/258851/roseanne-the-cop-and-her-lover

http://sixtyminutes.ninemsn.com.au/article/259072/straight-talk

http://sgp1.paddington.ninemsn.com.au/sixtyminutes/stories/2000_08_13/story_215.asp —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.211.128.20 (talk) 22:27, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— 123.211.128.20 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Delete You don't have to repeat yourself, and we know there are primary sources which prove that she exists, but are there any secondary sources of other people talking about her that we've been missing showing that she meets any of the criteria of WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR? I've been unable to find any - one book on a bestseller list does not establish notability for the author unless people actually write about the author further, so this seems to be a pretty clear case of WP:BLP1E. VernoWhitney (talk) 23:12, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP THIS PAGE Kathryn

Under the Sign of Schapelle: Passing through Customs

Melissa Jane Hardie University of Sydney

On a recent trip to Kingsford Smith I encountered a large advertisement for Schapelle Corby's autobiography at the entrance to Customs. This disproportionate icon reminds the passerby that the travelling body is read through a hermeneutics of suspicion; that imposture and deception are anticipated acts within this transitional precinct, and that criminal ‘identity’ is understood to exist covertly in its realm. Equally, it serves the more prosaic but curiously cognate purpose of advertising ‘airport’ literature as a form of intellectual escape, proposing the pleasure of ludic reading in the place of tedious voyage to pass the time.

My paper reads events in the story of Schapelle Corby's arrest and conviction for their roles in a number of competing discursive regimes. Within the supermodern logic of the airport facility (Auge) the nation-state finds compelling vestiges in the process of customs inspections. In the case of the Corby arrest, trial, and imprisonment a knot of concerns over national, regional, and ethnic autonomy and privilege comes to structure her defence, which I will discuss through her autobiographical "My Story" (written with Kathryn Bonella, 2006).

My paper will argue for an understanding of the relationship between the body and its objects in the transitional space of customs as a proto-psychoanalytic site of melancholic loss whose passage imposes a one-way logic of irremediable progression in place of the networked ‘flows’ that characterise hyper, post, or super-modern theories of space-time. Perhaps no contemporary space imposes a more binding relationship between bodies and their objects (passports, boogie bags) than Customs. Here, you cannot turn back time; here you are discovered. source: http://rsh.anu.edu.au/events/2008/passing/abstracts.doc.

Mirror, Mirror: Body Dysmorphic Disorder

Producer: Kathryn Bonella http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAuc2xAM7-8

Producer: Kathryn Bonella http://www.60minutes.ninemsn.com/webchats/263833/rags-to-riches-tsubi-creators-george-gorrow-and-dan-single

Breach of trust Producer: Kathryn Bonella http://sixtyminutes.ninemsn.com.au/stories/lizhayes/259360/breach-of-trust

Kiss me Kat http://sixtyminutes.ninemsn.com.au/stories/charleswooley/259322/kiss-me-kate —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.211.128.20 (talk) 02:13, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— 123.211.128.20 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Delete Lacks references to meet WP:BIO. The blatant sockpuppetry in this AfD should be taken into account by the closing admin. Nick-D (talk) 03:40, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't understand why there is an attempt to delete this page. Kathryn Bonella is obviously notable, and there should obviously be a page. So what is the real agenda here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by KZb5 (talk • contribs) 14:37, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— KZb5 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Keep - Dictionary of Notable Australian Women : PEARCE, SUZANNAH (editors)

Story By Karthryn Bonella - (1915386) My Story : Schapelle Corby with Kathryn Bonella —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.185.127.226 (talk) 14:39, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— 124.185.127.226 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Nice one. Bang goes the rather pathetic 'not notable' argument!— Preceding unsigned comment added by KZb5 (talk • contribs)

— KZb5 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I'm afraid I have no idea what this comment is even trying to say - is there a dictionary (what's the isbn?) with an entry about Pearce or about Corby or about Bonella or what? Could someone clear this up for me? VernoWhitney (talk) 14:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There does seem to be some sockpuppet issues going on and if they will looked into if needed. However, I don't see any evidence that this author has any world-wide recognition besides the unsupported claim in the article. - Stillwaterising (talk) 20:04, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, there seems to be an agenda, not sockpuppets. For example, it suddenly becomes world-wide recognition, rather than Australian. Give me break, for goodness sake. In any case, if you want world-wide, her book has been published world wide. It is called No More Tomorrows outside Australia. KZb5 (talk)
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kathryn_Bonella&oldid=1070198007"