Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Valerie McKenzie

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. The burden of proof is on editors in favour of retaining the article to show that the topic is notable. It's fair enough to say that sources proving notability may be available beyond the reach of other editors, but no credible claims have been made here that such sources exist for this topic. Skomorokh 04:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Valerie McKenzie[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:BIO and WP:AUTHOR. simply being an author of books doesn't guarantee automatic notability. could find hardly any third coverage of this particular Valerie McKenzie as an Australian author. [1] LibStar (talk) 02:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment regarding WP:AUTHOR I believe this author specifically fails criterion 1 and 2: "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors" and "The person's work either has won significant critical attention" LibStar (talk) 07:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Could find no articles about the author (the ones provided in LibStar search, except for possibly (2) are actually for a Dr. Valerie McKenzie, Biologist. Regarding her books, the Ms. McKenzie discussed in this AFD, yes she is a prolific writer with 15 books to her name, however none have been reviewed, even by an affiliated party let alone a 2nd or 3rd party source. All the books range between 90 and 150 pages. Sorry, I cannot find anything to establish notability under any of our criteria's. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 02:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reasonably prolific author whose works predate the web (hence why they don't appear on google searches). Isn't it a little unfair to expect to find reviews of books published between 1971 and 1990 on the web? The world of relaible sources existed before the inverntion og google! The publishers appear to be genuine (i.e. not vanity publishers). I would suggest a visit to a library and a look at back catalogues of newspapers, magazines etc. would reveal a multitude of sources. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 01:09, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - More than happy to change my mind if someone can come up with the references. I looked and looked and looked and I could not find them. Regarding the timeframe of 1971 through 1990 for not being able to find references on Google - Google News - Google Books or Google Scholar, sorry to disagree, but I have sourced and referenced articles from newspaper pieces and books, found on the internet, back to the mid 1800's. As to being unfair, I do not think so. One of the major requirements for establishing notability is the ability to be able to find - 3rd party - creditable - verifiable and reliable sources no matter the date frame that the article is involved with. If you find them, just point me too them. As I said, more than happy to change my opinion. Hope this explains a little better for my opinion. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 02:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I took a shot using the Gale (Cengage) database. It has two hits but both for others with the same name. I then checked the National Library of Australia catalogue as they often have bios. There's no bio in this case but they have cataloged 13 of McKenzie's books. Rather than adding a comment I went with delete. It's pretty easy to construct the Valerie McKenzie bibliography and so if someone ever runs across reliable evidence of notability then they can recreate the article and will be able to source it right from the beginning with the WP:N evidence. --Marc Kupper|talk 07:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on the absence of WP:RS indicated above to establish notability. Eusebeus (talk) 20:23, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Mattinbgn's arguments. I have found Google singularly unhelpful in finding material prior to 1990 (even though some items pop up) and therefore I am loathe to toss things out simply because the God Google fails to find them. Gillyweed (talk) 22:42, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

then you need to provide sources establishing notablity. LibStar (talk) 23:55, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are 13 books listed at http://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Search/Home?lookfor=Valerie%20McKenzie -- Paul foord (talk) 05:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

yes, taht verifies she's an author...but I'm thinking we need some third party coverage to establish notability. LibStar (talk) 05:51, 14 September 2009 (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.