Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cheryl Kaye Tardif (2nd nomination)

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. Killiondude (talk) 08:49, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cheryl Kaye Tardif

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

This is an autobiography started by an IP that geolocates to the subject's home town and largely written by the subject's own account, user:Cherylktardif. The book for which she is claimed to be best known, is self-published through a vanity press. She now publsihes via Imajin Books, which is her own firm. I looked through all 11 pages of Google hits for Cheryl K Tardif and found no usable sources. Blogs, author bios on sales sites, but no coverage in the literary press. Some of these describe her as "award-winning" but her website only describes her as having been nominated for the Lieutenant Governor of Alberta Arts Award (which she did not win). The quotes on her website come from publications like Real Estate Weekly.

In short, then, this is an autobiography of a self-published author who appears to have attracted no serious commentary from any of the usual sources. It was kept in 2006 after successful appeals to upcoming independent publishing and movie deals: over a decade later these have not happened. Guy (Help!) 07:40, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:51, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:51, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:52, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:52, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject is fairly prolific, according to WorldCat, but holdings of all her books, save one, are single or very low double digits. Whale Song shows 175, but this is still very low for fiction (which most public libraries preferentially stock). Taken with the poor sourcing, it seems this one does not pass muster. Agricola44 (talk) 16:29, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Our notability and sourcing standards have been tightened up considerably since 2006 — back then, we didn't have anywhere near as clear a set of rules for distinguishing a reliable source from an unreliable one as we do now, but rather permitted more or less any source at all that verified the content, inclusive of the author's own self-published website, to support notability. (To be fair, that was before people started trying the "I'm notable because I'm on Facebook!" thing that finally forced us to get stricter about what's a notability-supporting source and what isn't. Which isn't to say people weren't already trying to game the system in other ways, but we hadn't built up the quality control standards to effectively combat them yet. But I digress.) But under WP:AUTHOR mk. 2018, she has no notability claim or reliable source coverage strong enough to still be considered notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Bearcat (talk) 16:57, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet notability. I encourage the subject, should she see this AFD, to beware of self-written articles, lest detractors come on and begin to vandalize. It becomes easy for unknown people to become targets of vandalism as well. Bastique ^{☎ call me!} 18:27, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article has been around a LONG time, but in all that time, nothing has changed the concerns at the original AFD. A cursory google search turns up this Wikipedia article and nothing else except webpages and blogs written by the author, plus a smattering of websites selling her books. No one of note has written anything about her life story in reliable sources, and what's cited in the article is NOT really enough to sustain an article here. --Jayron 32 20:13, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment not that it matters at this point, but the fact that the article creator was an IP that geolocates to Vancouver means... they're one of the two million poeple who live there?104.163.153.162 (talk) 10:37, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is relevant in conjunction with the fact that the article ws then largely written by an account clearly identified as the subject. There's no real evidence of anyone other than the subject being interested in editing this. Guy (Help!) 16:40, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not relevant at all unless you like conspiracy theories. Millions of people live there.104.163.153.162 (talk) 18:08, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a conspiracy. It's just one person, Cheryl Kaye Tardif, who sometimes edits logged out. There can't be a conspiracy with only one person! --Jayron 32 19:14, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you outing an editor?104.163.150.32 (talk) 11:47, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relevance from this AFD discussion aside (because it's not relevant), running a geolocation on an IP address does not constitute outing. As you pointed out, a simple location look-up doesn't assert anything connected to one person's identity outside the IP address itself (and even that IP address could be shared). Millions of people could live in the area, so fear not :-). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:08, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per above, the relevance is clear to us admins. Guy (Help!) 13:45, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know that it is not actually her sister, lover, husband, boyfriend, colleague, employee, boss, neighbour, tenant, classmate, friend, customer, client or enemy? You don't.104.163.150.32 (talk) 11:45, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You say that like it matters for the purpose of deleting this article. It doesn't really. Even if it were, this article still has no place at Wikipedia. --Jayron 32 11:50, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm simply pointing out that you have zero idea who is at the other end of an IP address. And further, since you're claiming above that the IP is her, you should read WP:OUTING. The point here is that it's very bad practice to associate real live people with IP addresses or accounts when you really have no idea if they actually are that person. 104.163.150.32 (talk) 12:04, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You've said the same thing three times. You could say it a fourth time, and it still has no bearing on whether or not we should delete the article. I'm at a loss why you keep repeating it in the context of this discussion. I will concede you are correct. It doesn't make any difference to the matter at hand, so you can stop repeating yourself. Once was enough (probably more than enough), at this point your just being repetitive. --Jayron 32 15:48, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:BROTHER. Not our first rodeo. Guy (Help!) 16:43, 12 January 2018 (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.