Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christina Katz

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. MBisanz ^talk 13:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christina Katz

Christina Katz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

I don't see enough exposure for this author or her works to pass

• Delete - Non-notable. Article reads like promotional material. All the external links and references are either promotionial websites for her books (by herself or by her publisher), or e-zines she publishes in. Similarly for her Google hits. Puffino (talk) 13:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• She does seem good at promotion. However, two of her books are published in the UK by David and Charles, which is a well known publisher and not a purveyor of junk http://www.davidandcharles.co.uk/results.asp?AUB=Christina%20Katz&TAG=&CID= On the whole, I'd go for a Keep conditional on a bit more outside referencing. Peridon (talk) 14:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Author of non-trivial books and article is relatively well-written and sourced. Article doesn't fail any of the inclusion criteria, IMO. §FreeRangeFrog 20:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails multiple reliable source test. Single source Writer's Digest. Also not listed in Biography & Genealogy Master Index, Contemporary Authors, Dictionary of Literary Biography, or Marquis Who's Who on the Web. Lexis/Nexis found no reviews of her books in major U.S. newspapers. She does an occasional piece for the Oregonian. Her books are non-trivial, true, they are seriously intended; however, that doesn't provide notability. This definitely seems like a well-written promotional piece. --Bejnar (talk) 08:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the
  talk) 00:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:52, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete nothing to show that she has received significant coverage in reliable independent sources (see
  WP:BIO). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:31, 9 February 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.