Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sally Ramage

: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 23:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

=[[Sally Ramage]]=

:{{la|Sally Ramage}} ([{{fullurl:Sally Ramage|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sally Ramage}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

The editor of a newsletter and author of some articles? No independent assessment of notability. Scott Mac (Doc) 00:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak delete not enough evidence to dispel the impression of self-promotion; articles, books seem to be in newsletter sor self-published [http://books.google.com/books?id=m7M0v4rFGDcC&dq=Sally+Ramage&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=c635VJBvyW&sig=UO2HqG_16RShWiYSzbZ-bnB5wQQ&hl=en&ei=p3_JSbH5CuLgtgeAgsmlAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPR7,M1]. JJL (talk) 00:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

:: I looked into the books, unless I missed some, everyone was via a vanity/POD publisher. --Cameron Scott (talk) 00:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

::::Vanity and POD are two different sort of things. They often go together, but not always. Vanity publishers try to earn money by making the authors pay fees upfront, or by forcing them to by large amounts of their own book. Print On Demand is a method by which a book is printed each time it is ordered (on demand). There are plenty of publishers who rightly push the costs of these books on the buyer rather than the author. (sorry a pet peeve of mine)- Mgm|(talk) 12:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete This article first came to my attention when someone mentioned it on the BLP board, they thought it was of a notable person but the article needed some clean-up. A quick glance suggested to me that was the case, however... once I started digging in the sources, they were all listing to generic pages - so if there was a claim that she did some work for notable organisation X, then it just linked to their homepage. As far as I can best determine she's worked as an editor and administrator and researcher for a number of organisations - completely run of the mill stuff and nothing that suggests that the subject is suitable for a wikipedia article. --Cameron Scott (talk) 00:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Further comment about sources - The vast majority of her articles are published in Mondaq.com and what do [http://www.mondaq.com/contributor.asp?section_id=4&product_id=21 they] have to say about their service?

On pricing Mondaq breaks the mold of traditional 'pay to publish' marketing opportunities that are expensive, demographically dubious, and provide no conversion evidence at the end of the year when it comes to making renewal decisions. the lexis stuff seems to indexs of this paid material. --Cameron Scott (talk) 01:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete. Although I see a large number of papers, essay and books written by her, I cannot find any coverage about her in independent, reliable sources that would demonstrate that she meets our notability guidelines for inclusion in the encyclopedia. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep and clean With this author's output, it is likely a reader of her various legal writings would look for background biographical information here. Deletion would create a conspicuous absence in my opinion Jordanstratford (talk) 01:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete since this person, despite the claimed output, does not seem to be notable--such a person should generate some meaningful, independent hits on Google News, and she doesn't. Drmies (talk) 02:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Query Google scholar seems to list quite a few publications for her [http://scholar.google.ca/scholar?q=Sally+Ramage&hl=en&lr=&btnG=Search] (I'm assuming she's all the SS Ramage legal hits here), but none of them show any citations. I do not know how citations work in the field of law, would a notable legal scholar not be expected to show citations in a search like this? Pete.Hurd (talk) 16:45, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

:: As best as I can determine, the pay to publish site she uses mondaq, submits it's material to crawlers so it appears in various databases. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment I note also that the Google Scholar search turns up a hit for "Fraud: Law, Procedure and Investigation. S Ramage - 2009 - Oxford University Press" but I can find no other information about this book on line, and don't think it amounts to a claim of notability by itself, per (WP:CRYSTAL) among other reasons. Pete.Hurd (talk) 16:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

:: I had a look into this and can also find nothing about it. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

:::Clicking on the links provided by the google scholar search gives this result, with some apparently independent info, it's published this month - [http://www.scenesafe.co.uk/content.asp?ids=146], and WorldCat says it's in 6 libraries - [http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/273501961]. She has also been known as Sally Dabydeen & Sally Sookram - see earlier versions of the article, but I didn't find enough good evidence when I looked at the article when it was prodded. The OUP book looks like the best evidence she may eventually be considered notable enough here.John Z (talk) 20:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

:::: I'm not sure this book has been published yet - it does not seem to available from the Blackstone's site (which is the imprint) under which policing material is released by the OUP. --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

::::: Further investigation suggests that it's actually another self-published book and nothing to do with the OUP (see article talkpage). --Cameron Scott (talk) 01:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

::::::As I commented on the talk page, info in my last version of the article was editted out. I think the links above may clear things up; the OUP book appears to be the second edtion of the iUniverse book, with a different ISBN and a new coauthor.John Z (talk) 02:06, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

:::::::Yup [http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/273501961/editions?editionsView=true&referer=di]. Although the lack of entry on other dbases is surprising.--Scott Mac (Doc) 02:16, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

:::::::: I'm still not convinced this book exists - the only library copies are the iuniverse version and I can find no mention of it on any OUP site. --Cameron Scott (talk) 02:21, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

:::::::::I think it is most likely that it actually does or will exist; if not, my hat is off to whoever for making a good show of it. In any case, I agree with Pete Hurd that it is not likely to save the article alone, so I think it's moot. In a year, if there are reviews, if major publishers publish her other books, things might be different.John Z (talk) 03:28, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

: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.