Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cathy Conheim

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. (non-admin closure) buff bills 7701 00:27, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cathy Conheim

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

Contesed PROD, non-notable author. No sources to suggest so or stated in the article. All I found was a blog post on HuffingtonPost other than that I didn't find anything that makes her notable. JayJay^{What did I do?} 03:09, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you're ignoring what it says on the article's talk page, which I directed you and which you should check anyways when a PROD is contested or before trying to delete something in the first place, really. The article has always contained a list of works, and you can click on any of the ISBN numbers and go through Wikipedia's own Special:BookSources page to WorldCat or another database to see that her books are in the permanent collections of many libraries, including at Harvard University for example, which satifies WP:AUTHOR. If you think stub articles are too short you should work to expand them; it isn't a valid reason to delete them. ▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 06:30, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the talk page and I did not find it a compelling argument.Jay Jay^{What did I do?} 17:08, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then let's make it clear that you started this deletion process without communicating your objectives first or any attempt at compromise or understanding. If you have personal preferences that are in conflict with the Wikipedia Project's notability and inclusion criteria you should advocate changing those criteria, not try to eliminate the products of other editors' research and contributions to the project without even mentioning that you're trying to implement your own policies. Oops, I've just realized that WP:AUTHOR has been significantly altered since I created this stub, so you probably wouldn't have been looking at the same policy I was. Pardon me while I look into the history of this change... ▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 17:46, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral—Okay, so it seems that a few years ago the notability criteria for authors were changed to make them more restrictive and remove any basis concerning the presence of the author's work in significant libraries. This seems to have been done with proper discussion and consensus and apparently even some support from Foundation personnel. While I'm not entirely sure I agree, I appreciate that there was a reasoned rationale in doing so. Hence I've saved off a personal copy of this article and I withdraw my above objections to deleting it. And I apologize for being a bit prickly. ▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 18:50, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:35, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:35, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:35, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Significant coverage in multiple reliable sources about the author and/or her pets and/or her works concerning her cat + dog "healing pets". San Diego Pets Magazine 2013, San Diego Pets Magazine 2012, Pets Lounge TV program, UT San Diego, ASPCA "Cat of the Year" (national award),[1][2] Canidae, Animal Planet, Cat Fancy magazine, Fido Friendly Magazine. -- GreenC 17:46, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:24, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:37, 17 January 2014 (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.