Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genny Smith

Genny Smith was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was to keep the article.

I say delete, advertising, because it looks promotional to me,, not notable. What do others think? Notability of Genny Smith not established. The most recent book, Deepest Valley: A Guide to Owens Valley, Its Roadsides and Mountain Trails, only has an Amazon sales rank of 744,402, possibly because it is out of print. She is not exactly the author, but a co-editor with one Jeff Putnam, and one of ten contributors. I haven't checked the other titles listed. If I were visiting Owens Valley I would probably find and buy this book in a local bookstore, but I don't think co-editing a local hiking guide is an encyclopedic achievement. I harbor the suspicion that User:Hike395 may be trying to build publicity for a reissue. It would be reasonable to list Deepest Valley as a reference in Owens Valley. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 18:22, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC) (P. S. Oh. It's already there).

• Delete. A pile of guidebooks made for the local tourist trade does not an author make. Well, it can, but the way this page is set up it looks like an attempt to pad the old resume to have a new work considered for publication. If anybody's familiar with these works or the area to establish influence, though, speak up. Inky 21:58, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. I have absolutely no economic interest in Genny Smith's books. I am not Genny Smith. (I met her once about 5-6 years ago, seemed like a nice lady). I do like her books: they are the best sources for local history and geography in the Eastern Sierra Nevada. And because these sources are so useful, I think they should be listed here. I wish I knew more about her: I only know that she lives, at least part-time, in Mammoth Lakes, California. It also looks like the University of California Press is starting to re-issue the books (e.g., ISBN 0520239148)--- I didn't list the ISBNs for the re-issues, because 1) I don't have the books and 2) some of the reviews on amazon.com about the re-issued books were rather negative. If placing the latest and greatest ISBNs on the web page is enough to keep the page, I'm happy to change it. -- hike395 08:19, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Would people be happy if I just deleted the ISBN links altogether? That seems silly to me, but I would like to keep the page. -- hike395 08:27, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No, we encourage the ISBN links, they make it easier to find information about the book. But you should certainly include the reissues. I'll withdraw my remarks about it being advertising.

It seems to me, you have tried to use Wikipedia to pay a compliment and express appreciation for someone whose work you admire. A kind thing to do, but not what Wikipedia is for. The problem I have with the article is that you say very little about Genny Smith and don't make a good case for her being notable enough to merit an encyclopedia article.

What you can of course do is add this material to your user page, User:hike395. You know, "Here are some of my personal recommendations for hiking books; I particularly like those edited by Genny Smith" or whatever encomia you feel are appropriate.

And, if the books are good it is very reasonable to put them in the "References" section of any article to which they apply (with ISBN numbers). Furthermore, if you have a good short NPOV quote you can cite that is not simply your own opinion--such as "Sierra club recommendation" or even "recommendation of the Owen Valley hiking club" or anything like that, which characterizes the book, I think that would be fine to put in, too. But I don't see Genny Smith as notable enough to be a topic for an encyclopedia article. (Meaning no disrespect to a fellow Smith). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 13:56, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Actually, the Sierra Club has reviewed and recommended her books [1], so it isn't just me.

I prefer not to post recommendations to my home page. Adding references is a good idea. I have another idea: how about creating List of guidebooks about the Sierra Nevada, not exclusively limited to Genny Smith? I could include other notable books, including Secor, "Sierra North", etc. I would like the list of references in one place.

Otherwise, I see your point, and withdraw my "Keep" vote. --- hike395 16:37, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Think I'd prefer adding a section on Guidebooks to Sierra Nevada (US)#Lists... which is also where people are more likely to find it since if you type in "Sierra Nevada" you get a disambiguation page which points them to Sierra Nevada (US). Depends on how long the list is. If there are more than a dozen then a breakout article might be sensible. This probably isn't the right venue for this discussion if it goes on much longer... I personally think a list of Sierra Nevada guidebooks is well worth having someplace, and I don't see any problem with identifying Genny Smith's guidebooks as good ones in an NPOV way. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 17:05, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Keep : Being a publisher is notable as well as being on Board of Directors of the Mono Lake Committee (a very important conservation group in Eastern California). I've been thinking about creating an article for David Gains (the founder of the Committee) for some time now. --mav 00:13, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Mav's comments made me change my mind again: deletion is forever, right? I think that Genny Smith does have the potential to be "encyclopedic" in the future --- I just need to dig up more data. If we delete her now, we'll never have an article about her. How about if I leave her as a bio-stub, fold her books into a longer list, and point the bio article to the list of guidebooks? -- hike395 15:18, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Keep. Minor, but there's no reasonable argument to delete this - David Gerard 19:52, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• In light of the further discussion, I'm amending my vote to Keep in the hopes that the article will be expanded. Inky 01:05, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Verifiable and factually accurate. --[[User:OldakQuill|Oldak Quill]] 13:22, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.