Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beth Winegarner

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 delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:40, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Beth Winegarner[edit]

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

Fails the specific notability criteria for journalists, notability guidelines for people, and the general notability guideline. Due diligence brings up article bylines, some of which are in reliable sources; however, I was unable to find any real coverage of the article subject herself. Jack Frost (talk) 06:01, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 06:03, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 06:03, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 06:03, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The articles linked to as sources are interviews of the subject or reviews of a book she wrote. Perhaps changing the category would make notability more clear. Lizzard (talk) 17:34, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One more point, those interviews and reviews would fall under the notability guidelines for creative professionals as, multiple independent periodical articles and reviews. "such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. (Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Creative professionals) Lizzard (talk) 17:58, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems that the most legitimate claim is as an author, given the list of books, but WorldCat shows a grand total of 1 holding (for the Sonoma book). The Columbine book and some of the others show no holdings (with WorldCat also showing no publisher, so likely self-published). Not that that is bad, but this aspect of her work has clearly not been noted. The page was created today and the photo was also uploaded to Commons today by a different user. Seems a little suspicious. Agricola44 (talk) 23:23, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When I work on an article or make a new one and there's no photo on Wikimedia Commons, I look for photos and ask the rights owner to upload, with an explanation and a link to the Upload Wizard, often with fair success. Just did the same on a different article too. Lizzard (talk) 23:03, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, no coincidence about the photo upload - I took this photo of Beth a while back and was asked to upload it to Commons for inclusion in the new article. Dreamyshade (talk) 23:25, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Her works have not had significant impact, and reviews in non-notable magazines and blogs do not add up to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:30, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 01:20, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lulu is a self-publishing house, not that there's anything wrong with that — but it doesn't get one past GNG on the "independence" question. Beyond that, it's a GNG failure. Journalists are hard to source out in the best of circumstances. Carrite (talk) 18:47, 25 February 2018 (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.