Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wendy Perriman

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. Jujutacular ^talk 04:14, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wendy Perriman[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

This article was developed through this paid-editing bid on odesk.com. It is very puffed up, and the subject doesn't meet the general notability guideline or the specific notability guideline for authors. She isn't considered by many to be authoritative or innovative in her field, she hasn't developed any significant concepts, her collective output isn't notable, and the attention devoted to is isn't significant. Her publishers, Inka Publications and the Cambridge Scholars Press, are both relatively small and nonnotable. There are also serious conflict of interest and promotional issues here. Them From Space 11:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stong Delete & Comment If the Cambridge Scholars Press is non-notable, then shouldn't its WP article be deleted. I don't like the idea that some people, as expressed by the listing at this paid-editing bid, view Wikipedia as a personal depository. While WP editors may suggest the creation of new articles, I doubt that WP officials preauthorized the creation of this article. Since most of the references are not internet accessible, verification is difficult. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 12:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would disagree with the comments above. Penguin books is a major international publisher which certainly gives the author legitimacy. The content was edited earlier today and now looks pretty factual. I expect that the writer did not know Wikipedia markup language such as adding a picture to Wikipedia, so I would find that asking someone to do this is a fair ask for a non-technical person. MalibuTheCat (talk · contribs)
- Comment It looks like the author has some pretty good scholarly credentials, beyond the Ph.D. & Penguin books, she is listed in the Poetry Encyclopia, won a bunch of scholarly awards, has had other works published by Johns Hopkins, is accredited by the Willa Cather & Emily Dickinson society (and has written the forward for other Dickinson books), society of American Women Writers, Journal of American History, American literature association, has spoken at schoarly conferences for these authors, and has been reviewed by other top scholars in the field. It sounds like she is one of the world's leading experts in the topic.
  - “PERRIMAN Wendy K(aren).” International Who’s Who in Poetry and Poets’ Encyclopedia (Eighth Edition, 1997) p. 280.
  - Casperson School of Graduate Prizes in English. “Awards and Fellowships.” Drew University. http://depts.drew.edu/engl/Awards%20and%20Prizes/Awards.htm. Retrieved July 2010.
  - Sarah Hare-Lidman (Winter 1995). “Women Who Write: Success Stories.” Writers’ Notes. p. 6.
  - Dr. Maryanne Garbowsky (November December 2007,Volume 19, Number 2) “Book Review.” Emily Dickinson International Society Bulletin. p. 29.
  - Book Announcement. “Recent Scholarship.” Journal of American History http://www.historycooperative.org/cgibin/justtop.cgi?act=justtop&url=http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/jah/90.4/rs_16.html. Retrieved July 2010.
  - Annie Finch (The Emily Dickinson Journal Vol. 17, No. 2, Fall 2008) “My Father Dickinson: On Poetic Influence.” The Johns Hopkins University Press. http://muse.jhu.edu/login?uri=/journals/emily_dickinson_journal/v017/17.2.finch.html. Retrieved July 2010.
  - Society for the Study of American Women Writers (Thursday November 9, 2006). “Narratives of Healing: Nineteenth Century Constructions of Writing and Wellness” – Session One. http://www.wsu.edu/~campbelld/ssaww/ConferenceProgram2006.pdf Retrieved July 2010.
  - The American Literature Association (Friday May 23, 2008) “Toni Morrison and Warfare” – Session 10-E. http://www.calstatela.edu/academic/english/ala2/ala%202008%20program.doc
  - Dr. Merrill Skaggs (2009) “Foreword” to Willa Cather and the Dance: “A Most Satisfying Elegance” (NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 2009). p. 11-13
  - Wendy K. Perriman (Wednesday June 2, 2010) “Willa Cather and the Dance.” Willa Cather 2010 Spring Conference. http://www.willacather.org/conferences/spring-conference . Retrieved July 2010.
  - Drew University Library (Issue 18, Fall 2005) “Cather Colloquium.” Plenary Speaker. p5. http://www.drew.edu/depts/library.aspx?id=5781. Retrieved July 2010.
  - Willa Cather Archive. “Cather Studies, Volume 6.” University of Nebraska-Lincoln http://cather.unl.edu/cs006_contributors.html. Retrieved July 2010.
  - Dr. J.W. Hall (November 2008) “Book Review” – Wendy K. Perriman’s “Dancing behind the Veil: Willa Cather’s Literary Choreography in A Lost Lady in Joseph R. Urgo and Merrill Maguire Skaggs’ Willa Cather: New facts, New Glimpses, Revisions (NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 2007. http://www.fdupress.org/book_reviews_scholarly/9780838641354_JW_Hall_University_of_Mississippi_-_Choice_November_2008.html. Retrieved July 2010.
  - Wendy K. Perriman (Vol. 49.1 - Summer 2005) “!0th International Cather Seminar In Nebraska.” Willa Cather Newsletter & Review. P1 / 19. http://www.willacather.org/newsletter-a-review/issues?start=10. Retrieved July 2010. MalibuTheCat (talk · contribs)
- Comment. The comments above were added, without "keep" votes, by the IP address indicated. In a later edit, MalibuTheCat (talk · contribs) added three "keep" votes to them. I have removed the keep votes to keep the attribution of who said what more clear. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent sources are cited at all, and there does not seem to be any evidence of notability. (Incidentally, the notability of the publishers is totally irrelevant, as notability is not inherited, and nor is non-notability.) JamesBWatson (talk) 19:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and comment - Advertising. Further evidence that ISBN numbers are BAR CODE NUMBERS FOR SELLING BOOKS. They need to be botted the hell into extinction on Wikipedia. Use OCLC numbers if you think WP users are too retarded to use author and title info to track down a title. Hmph! Carrite (talk) 19:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It looks like the ISBN numbers have been removed. Regarding the comment, "She isn't considered by many to be authoritative or innovative in her field" - how do you make this claim? She has a Ph.D. in literary studies and has written 2 books on Cather and Dickinson. If you are saying a Ph.D. and published books do not count as knowledge on the subject, what else could possibly be needed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fanwide (talk • contribs) — Fanwide (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Comment and request It seems to me that there are far more 'Keeps' there than there have been different posters. Please sign your posts with ~~~~. Could someone please sort them out - I'm tired and in need of my tea... Peridon (talk) 20:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- MalibuTheCat just added 3 "keeps" with this edit. The arguments that were prefaced by the "keeps" were made by 131.107.0.81. Them From Space 21:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ta. Would you be so good as to strike through two of them - only one !vote per user is allowed. (I'm not going to try working them out...) Peridon (talk) 21:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've refactored in an attempt to make the attributions clearer. Along with the three from MalibuTheCat there were two different keeps from Fanwide that I've merged into a single comment. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Her book "Willa Cather and the dance" is in around 150 libraries, according to worldcat — verifiably a real book. The others have one or two holdings at best, and I can't find any evidence that they were anything other than self-published. There doesn't seem to be any evidence of the sort of academic impact that would be needed to pass WP:PROF#C1; I can't find any citations to her works in Google scholar, for instance. And there's also no evidence (such as newspaper reviews) that her works have had any impact in popular culture of the sort that might pass WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As David E says, the only claim to notability is her book on Dickinson, from a very minor publisher, which is insufficient as WP:AUTHOR and totally insufficient as WP:PROF. But with respect to some comments above,the reputation of a publisher is of extremely great importance in evaluations under WP:PROF because this is a key factor in how the academic professions evaluate careers; a PhD_a book based on the PhD are minimal qualification, showing knowledge of the subject, not being an authority in it; she has never been been hired even as an assistant professor anywhere; not enough to get hired--and indeed, she apparently has never even been in a tenure track line. But ISBN numbers are the standard identifier for books, and provides the input for WP:Book sources. It's required information here for a book title, if available; the OCLC number is a useful supplement, to provide for books too old to be in the ISBN system. Though ISBNs were developed by the book trade they've been adopted as a standard by libraries also, as well as newspapers etc. DGG ( talk ) 00:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete i checked the titles published, and they are from (for our purposes) vanity presses, and the trade book from penguin is not published yet. No prejudice to recreation upon publication of her novel with any notable reviews, sales, etc. I am sure she doesnt make notability as an author, i dont think she makes notability as an academic.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:30, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete following sound analysis given by DGG. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:42, 1 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, per DGG, clearly not yet notable. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:24, 4 August 2010 (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.