This article was nominated for deletion on 19 December 2013 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Literature on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LiteratureWikipedia:WikiProject LiteratureTemplate:WikiProject LiteratureLiterature articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles
Thanks for the feedback! To improve the article, cited 11 secondary sources (two are primary, but noted as such), supported information presented (re: non-trivial support), specified notability criteria (this is an established journalist and HarperCollins and Hyperion-published author). After reviewing the guidelines and dozens upon dozens of author articles, I'm surprised these were flagged, but if there are any remaining issues with the article, please be specific. Thank you, and thanks again for editing! Morganmissen (talk) 08:07, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The secondary articles are hardly enough to qualify as non-trivial coverage. reddogsix (talk) 15:34, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again, after careful review of guidelines, the subject's published works alone ensure notability as there are tens of thousands (hundreds of thousands?) of author articles supporting this. Your issues with biographical information references seem to be a matter of opinion or personal taste that you are unable to substantiate or clarify. The article contains no reference to primary sources, so I have removed that line. Thanks for your contribution to Wikipedia! Morganmissen (talk) 19:12, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please be careful not to edit other people's comment's when adding your own. There is an absence non-trivial secondary sources - the Wire and the HuffPost are examples of primary sources. Hundreds of thousands? Doubtful, that would leave her time for sleep or anything else. Even if this were the case, this is not a significant or well-known body of work, I see no evidence or its importance or that the individual meets any of the items in WP:AUTHOR. A quick notice of a job change or a wedding announcement is hardly non-trivial mention. reddogsix (talk) 19:34, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All issues resolved. Subject is widely cited (over 20 reliable sources have been submitted in 24 hours) and an important figure (non-trivial reviews of work by The New York Times, New Yorker, etc). Based on this alone, subject exceeds notability guidelines independent of your interpretation of WP:author. Regarding biographical information; independent, reliable secondary coverage, particularly by the New York Times, is not trivial. Please see WP:GNG, WP:BASIC under WP:PEOPLE regarding notability and WP:PSTS, WP:PRIMARY, WP:SECONDARY regarding sources if you have any questions. Thanks again. Morganmissen (talk) 21:34, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The wedding announcement in the NY Times is far from a valid usable reference. Wedding announcements are generally submitted by the participant's family. It is simply not independent. reddogsix (talk) 04:07, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have re-added the comments that were removed by Morganmissen. The simple reason is to remove them subverts the overall consistency of the conversation. Please do not remove it. If you have anything to add please feel free do so, but do not change the overall conversation. Maintaining the comments will help other editors understand the train of thought. reddogsix (talk) 01:02, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
USER:reddogsix, please do not remove my comments, and undo the edit where you did. Please sign your username to your comments so this is not confusing to administrators and editors. Remember there is a log of your saved edits, and removing comments that do not support your opinions will be noted by administrators and editors. Morganmissen (talk) 00:59, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to add comments, but please do not remove any. If I have done so, my apologies. You and I seem to have some disagreements, that is fine and it happens, but please lets not start Warring over these disagreements. Remember this is only a Wikipedia article, not really anything important in the greater scheme of life. If you feel I am acting in a manner contrary to Wikipedia guidelines or policy, feel free to comment using WP:AVI. My best to you and thanks...reddogsix (talk) 01:04, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Apology accepted, but again, please go back and include my comments that you removed. Deleting other users' comments that are neutral but in conflict with your personal opinion, as well as adding misrepresentative claims to a deletion discussion (particularly those that have already been improved), are indeed in conflict with editing rights.
At this point I'd strongly suggest submitting yourself for editor review. Your personal sentiment against the subject has interfered with your objectivity and adherence to guidelines several times, and editors/administrators should research whether this is a pattern of behavior with similar subjects.
Your bibliography copyediting has been removed because it violates citation guidelines (see WP:CITEHOW and WP:BIB particularly chronological, bulleted citations for books). Furthermore, it appears to be an attempt to discredit the subject's published works (e.g. specifying "e-book" or "paperback" for a novel published by HarperCollins, but ignoring another published book entirely). I assume good faith, but in light of continued undue scrutiny against the subject, cannot think of any other reason why you would do this.
It appears as though there is consensus on this article, so I'd ask that you refrain from warring and injecting inappropriate edits, or editing should be frozen all together. I know it can be frustrating when editors disagree with you, but this is wasting valuable time and effort for those wanting to make Wikipedia a better place. Best, Morganmissen (talk) 01:50, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
<sigh /> I would ask you to refrain from assuming there is any sort of "personal sentiment against the subject" when you have a disagreement with other editors and I suggest you WP:AFG when interacting with others. If you feel my actions are inappropriate, you are welcome to use WP:AVI to report those actions. Also, feel free to re-add any comments that were accidentally removed when I restored the comments you removed from this talk page, but again, I ask that you not remove any of the existing comments. reddogsix (talk) 02:03, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg){kind=small}