Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arlene Hunt

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. Singu larity 00:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arlene Hunt[edit]

Article doesn't really assert any notability at all. Could be a speedy. h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 02:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete meets WP:BIO how?Balloonman 03:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reliable third party sources have been added; article meets WP:BIO due to nontrivial coverage by a leading national newspaper and several secondary independent reviews of the subjects work. This strikes me as a singularly lazy nomination. Articles whose notability in question should be addressed using the notability tag - this article did not even have a single maintenance tag attached to it to notify editors of possible concerns. Afd is not a platform for addressing poorly sourced articles, but rather for discussing whether the subject would possibly deserve an article, regardless of how well written or sourced the article in its given state was.Skomorokh ^incite 05:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Four books published in as many years by a reputable publisher is notable. Anarchia 05:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Weak keep, with the added ref. -- Depends on the books, which need to be demonstrated by substantial coverage in secondary sources such as reviews. ref 1 is the author's web site. Ref 2 is s very short notice in a review of multiple books, Ref. 3 is a "Lifestyle" interview with all data provided by the author. No substantial RSs. If there are no further reviews, notability can not be shown. Sourcability can be challenged, and we're challenging it here. DGG (talk) 06:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Another reference to a review in Irish Independent has been added. Mathmo ^Talk 08:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Skomorokh. Mathmo ^Talk 07:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It has multiple independent sources. Did the nominator bother searching for any sources before nominating it? She's published four novels with a major British publisher. Nick mallory 11:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article initially did meet the criteria for speedy deletion as it didn't assert importance. There are probably thousands of notable subjects which are lost through A7, because inexperienced contributors add articles with no sources and no indication of importance, even though in some cases they actually are notable.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So why not try and avoid this? Would a google search or a notability tag really have been too much to ask? Skomorokh ^incite 13:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I do think a bit of looking for notability would be appropriate in this case, and my search (with some work to filter out articles about a missing teenager) found [1] and one through LexisNexis that I don't care to pay for. FrozenPurpleCube 17:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep please many different reliable sources are added now yuckfoo 17:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Bearian 22:03, 13 August 2007 (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.