Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alice Cooper Bailey
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
- 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. Consensus is clear that subject meets WP:NAUTHOR. (non-admin closure) Ifnord (talk) 03:49, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Alice Cooper Bailey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails notability guideline. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 06:53, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
- Comment Same comment as in the other AfD proposals posted today: this is unhelpful. We are given no indication that WP:BEFORE was performed. This is one of several AfD proposals posted at the same time with the same short-sentence rationale by the same editor. FOARP (talk) 17:02, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
- KEEP Per WP:BASIC and WP:NEXIST. There are at least three books about authors that have chapters or paragraph-length entries about her. Whilst I do not have access to these books as they are not online, it appears that notability can be sustained. See here: 1 2 3 FOARP (talk) 17:02, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
- Keep I have found reviews of most of the books in digitised newspapers, as well as articles about the writer. With the sources already in the article, plus one that FOARP also found, it is plenty to meet WP:AUTHOR. I will try to add some of the references to the article, as I have already done with two of the other 6 articles AfDed by the same nom on the same day, with the exact same wording. (If there is not a limit on how many AfDs one person can do on one day, there should be!) RebeccaGreen (talk) 17:18, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
- I note that all six of the articles AfD'd appear to have been written by User:TeriEmbrey who the nom appears to be in a dispute with. This is unhelpful to the editors who work on AfD, if WP:BEFORE was done then tell us what you found/didn't find and give us more to work with. FOARP (talk) 17:33, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:19, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:26, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:29, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:32, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- Keep, meets WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG, there are multiple reviews of her books: see her papers held at the University of Southern Mississippi under D (an enterprising missi wikieditor could incorporate some of them), kirkus has 2 reviews of The Hawaiian Box Mystery ("To this reader this book for the middle teens deserves attention...", "An earnest effort to combine a career story with a timely account of Hawaii results here in an insipid blend of adolesoent wish fulfillment and cliche."), and The Bulletin of the Center for Children's Books: p.141 - "Trite situations, mediocre writing." ("oh look, 2 reviews so meets WP:NBOOK for a standalone" .. "don't be cheeky coola.":)), add to these what the editors above have found, and Bailey is notable. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:27, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- Comment I have added the sources found by all of us to the article. I have also included some additional information, and plan to include more from the sources, including some quotes from reviews. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:58, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- Keep - as per the sources found by others, she does seem to meet WP:AUTHOR. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:53, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- WP:SNOW KEEP. WP:TROUT Nom for failing to WP:BEFORE.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:20, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
- yes, please! fishies mmmmmmmmm:)) Coolabahapple (talk) 00:29, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- Comment on the content, not continuously slapping a person with a trout. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 06:27, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- hi Amanda, some editors may see E.M.Gregory's comment as a bit harsh, although as someone who has followed/been involved with afds for a few years i can also see their annoyance/frustration(?) when editors instigate 1/2 a dozen afds in 5mins with an unhelpful "fails notability" and not much else, ie. no apparent indication that nominator has looked at alternatives such as searching for sources, raising concerns on article talkpage/with article creator/relevant wikiprojects, tagging article, that said we're all volunteers and i hope we can sit down and enjoy a cup of tea together. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:09, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Coolabahapple: Absolutely I can see how it would cause annoyance and frustration that I didn't explain much, but I always check as much as I can before hand on each individual article. I checked all first and then nominated all. The comments I made could have been more explained. I've learned that lesson, and also requested access to newspapers.com so I can run what people have found before. And I am not concerned about one trout, but they have put it on each AfD, so I've been trouted 6 times now by one editor. So that's why I pointed to a common principle. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 09:14, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- Just for the record, there were only 2 TROUT. E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:32, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Coolabahapple: Absolutely I can see how it would cause annoyance and frustration that I didn't explain much, but I always check as much as I can before hand on each individual article. I checked all first and then nominated all. The comments I made could have been more explained. I've learned that lesson, and also requested access to newspapers.com so I can run what people have found before. And I am not concerned about one trout, but they have put it on each AfD, so I've been trouted 6 times now by one editor. So that's why I pointed to a common principle. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 09:14, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- hi Amanda, some editors may see E.M.Gregory's comment as a bit harsh, although as someone who has followed/been involved with afds for a few years i can also see their annoyance/frustration(?) when editors instigate 1/2 a dozen afds in 5mins with an unhelpful "fails notability" and not much else, ie. no apparent indication that nominator has looked at alternatives such as searching for sources, raising concerns on article talkpage/with article creator/relevant wikiprojects, tagging article, that said we're all volunteers and i hope we can sit down and enjoy a cup of tea together. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:09, 19 December 2018 (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.