Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alwyn Hamilton

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. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:37, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alwyn Hamilton[edit]

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

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

Poorly referenced WP:BLP of a writer, whose only discernible claim of notability per WP:NAUTHOR is that she exists. And for referencing, what we have here is two primary sources (her own website and her "our authors" profile on the website of her publisher) and one Q&A interview in which she's talking about herself. As always, a writer is not automatically entitled to have a Wikipedia article just because she exists, and she doesn't get to talk herself into Wikipedia either -- she has to be the subject of enough coverage in reliable sources, written in the third person by people independent of her PR team, to clear WP:GNG. I'm also bundling her debut book, which doesn't have any properly sourced indication of notability either -- its sole source is the exact same Q&A interview that isn't cutting it in the BLP. Bearcat (talk) 16:05, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:27, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:28, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:28, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Alwyn Hamilton, and Rebel of the Sands, too. There are multiple RS of criticism of RoS and also for the sequel. Hamilton passes CREATIVE. I've added sources to her article, but don't have time to work on RoS, though you can see the sources that would be useful for the book in Hamilton's article. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:56, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:56, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:CREATIVE and WP:GNG. Hmlarson (talk) 04:49, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the author's article; "Redirect" the book article to the author article. No need for two article on these closely related subjects. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:23, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Ample evidence appearing in the footnotes for a GNG pass, no need to apply the AUTHOR SNG. Carrite (talk) 15:12, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Seeking additional feedback about book Rebel of the Sands
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jax 0677 (talk) 16:54, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Additional sourcing improved article, establishing notability. Montanabw^(talk) 18:50, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both. I expanded Rebel of the Sands with sources (e.g., New York Times, The Guardian) to help show that it meets WP:BKCRIT. gongshow talk 22:26, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep x2 ("what is all that white fluffy stuff", now now coola:)), Rebel of the Sands meets WP:NBOOK, with multiple reviews (in addition to those in the article, a lot more out there ie Deseret News, common sense media, Bulletin of the Center for Children's Books, New York Journal of Books School Library Journal, Booklist, The Horn Book, School Library Connection, VOYA Reviews phew! that will do:)) and being a NYT best seller, Hamilton meets WP:NAUTHOR, with this book held by over 1000 libraries worldwide (not just Canada and USA but numerous other countries ie. UK, NZ, OZ, Holland) so it is "well known", and has had plenty of reviews. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:00, 13 September 2017 (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.