Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beth Webb

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 2, merge 1, delete 1. RL0919 (talk) 04:50, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Beth Webb[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(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)

(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)

Semi-advertorialized articles about an author and several of her books, none properly sourced as meeting Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. Right across the board, the only notability claim being made in any of the articles is that she and the books exist, which isn't automatically enough in and of itself, and the only sources present in any of them are the author's own self-published website about herself and/or promotional content from the books' own publishing company, which are not GNG-building coverage. And all of the articles have been tagged for sourcing and/or notability issues since 2015, without ever seeing a whit of improvement in the seven years since.
As the books are all 15-30 years old and even the last book listed in the BLP is a decade old, I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with much better access to archives of British media coverage than I've got can find more GNG-worthy reliable sourcing than I've been able to find on Google -- but just using primary sources to verify that she and her books exist isn't enough in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 13:18, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, and United Kingdom. Bearcat (talk) 13:18, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've not yet decided but am leaning toward delete (note: see update below). However, I remain open to being convinced otherwise. Here's what my research has found: a 2015 review in the Guardian for Fleabag and the Fire Cat, a 2015 review titled "Full marks for Fleabag and the Ring of Fire" in the Wells Journal from England (which isn't online), a scattering of articles about Webb doing school visits, and that's it. If anyone has access to other reviews and coverage please share it. Also, there's some difficultly in searching b/c there's another children's author named Beth Webb Hart.
There is plenty of coverage now added across a few of the articles...and I expect they will keep expanding...although today is a major holiday in some places. For sure there is a lot you can find via Wikipedia Library. Cielquiparle (talk) 17:02, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the new citations you added in Beth Webb plus the reviews I found, I think she meets notability guidelines. But I'm still not sure all the individual books meet the book notability guidelines. What if they were folded into the main article?--SouthernNights (talk) 17:21, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Still TBD but Star Dancer definitely qualifies for a standalone article. It will take some time to track down all of it. Cielquiparle (talk) 17:28, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Still adding sources to the articles, but from what I have seen so far, I would propose:

Beth Webb – Keep
Star Dancer – Keep
Fire Dreamer – Merge to Star Dancer (as the sequel)
Fleabag Trilogy – Delete

There are only very brief reviews of Fire Dreamer, and it is the sequel to Star Dancer anyway, so it makes sense to merge them together. I was on the fence about Fleabag Trilogy, but I think it's OK to go ahead and delete it on the grounds that we only have one "named author" review in a reliable source. The Daily Telegraph review is short, harsh, and very negative; the Guardian review looks somewhat impressive at first, but if you read it carefully, it looks like a user-submitted review from "Meowa" (or it could be authored by Guardian staff posing as a cat for humour/promotional reasons); and I cannot bring myself to add that Wells Journal review to the Fleabag Trilogy article, because it is authored by Wells Bookworms, a children's book club local to the author. I also can't vouch for the lengthy character summaries in the existing article lacking citations (who wrote this? where did it come from?), even if plot summaries are allowed not to cite any sources. IRL, the Fleabag trilogy gets very high ratings in reader reviews and if you are a fan of the series, I would be hoping that people read those, rather than a Wikipedia article relying heavily on the one negative "adult" review to justify its existence. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:31, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with and support this proposal.--SouthernNights (talk) 14:40, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 01:16, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, merge and delete as explained above. Well-reasoned and nicely explained. Oaktree b (talk) 13:10, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer: Unless someone else joins this discussion, we now have consensus here between three (3) different participants. Realise the formatting of this discussion is unconventional, but it was a productive discussion, complicated by the fact that there were four related articles in a single AfD. Hopefully the proposal above is clear enough. Let me know if you need help with the merge of Fire Dreamer into Star Dancer; I'd recommend a straight cut and paste like we did for Unicorns II into Unicorns!, but it will probably require some fixing of citations, and I'm happy to add more of a summary at the top of the page, etc. Cielquiparle (talk) 10:08, 5 December 2022 (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.