Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carole Berry

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) v/r - T P 18:08, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Carole Berry[edit]

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

Questionable notability. Book series is long but I can only find a third party review of one book (her first) [1] and no third party interviews with the author. Fails WP:GNG. Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 19:10, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Name is common, making searching difficult, and book reviews are notoriously difficult to Google because so many are online only in proprietary databases. Amazon pages show multiple books reviewed in Publisher's Weekly, a strong signal of notability. Appears to be covered in books on female mystery writers, eg [2]. Movie options covered in trade press [3]. Worldcat shows extensive library holdings [4] [5] [6] (sample results). Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:34, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:AUTHOR has clear guidelines on creative professionals, and the subject doesn't currently meet them. Not a groundbreaking figure, not known for creating a significant technique, and doesn't have significant critical attention. Library holdings don't factor into this—there are plenty of works that are widespread but remain non-notable. As Publisher's Weekly is a trade magazine that anonymously reviews over six thousand titles a year in two hundred words each, I can't take an assertion that it can confer notability seriously; it's rare that a genre novel that ships to bookstores nationally has not been reviewed by Publisher's Weekly or an equivalent trade media outlet. As far as the book mentions, looking at them for more than a few moments convinces me that they are trivial and mere list-style mentions. No prejudice on inclusion if significant critical attention can be found paid to the author's works, but so far everything that's been found is fairly run of the mill for a non-notable author of genre fiction. — Chromancer ^talk/_cont 21:46, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - reviewed in this book, but finding much more is difficuly. Should we rescue? Bearian (talk) 18:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. She's not reviewed in that book. Her name is mentioned in a list of writers similar to the writer being reviewed, as I stated in my comments. — Chromancer ^talk/_cont 21:14, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Searching for her name and the name of her main character I found eight results straight away. [7]. I added a reception section to the article, quoting some of the praise the first news result gave her. Dream Focus 20:39, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources located by Dream Focus' tenacious Googling skillz above. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 13:13, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:AUTHOR. A single lengthy, and a single abbreviated, review (and mere mentions elsewhere) adds up to neither "significant critical attention" nor "significant coverage". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:03, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The lack of third-party sources about this author though is concerning. If not a single one in a book can be found then I say Delete♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:10, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The overall library holdings in worldCat are sufficient to show her as a notable author [8]. I would certainly not support articles on the individual books, as fans sometimes try to add to Wikipedia, but an general one on the author is appropriate. Additionally, there are quite a few more reviews The full list is as follows:

The Death of a Dancing Fool.: The Bookwatch March 1996 v17 p4 , Library Journal Dec 1995 v120 n20 p162,

The Death of a Difficult Woman. Kirkus Reviews Oct 15, 1994 v62 p1371 , Publishers Weekly Oct 24, 1994 v241 n43 p54

The Year of the Monkey Armchair Detective Winter 1989 v22 p78 , The Bookwatch March 1996 v17 p4 , Kirkus Reviews May 15, 1988 v56 p724, Publishers Weekly April 29, 1988 v233 n17 p68

The Letter of the Law: The Practical Lawyer July 1988 v34 n5 p89(7), Tribune Books (Chicago) Dec 27, 1987 p4,m Booklist Dec 1, 1987 v84 p605 Kirkus Reviews Dec 1, 1987 v55 p1650, Publishers Weekly Oct 30, 1987 v232 n18 p56

Good Night, Sweet Prince. Publishers Weekly Jan 12, 1990 v237 n2 p49, Kirkus Reviews Feb 1, 1990 v58 p140 , Booklist Feb 15, 1990 v86 p1142

Island Girl Kirkus Reviews Oct 1, 1991 v59 p1247 , Publishers Weekly Sept 27, 1991 v238 n43 p46, Library Journal Sept 1, 1991 v116 n14 p234

Nightmare Point. Publishers Weekly Feb 8, 1993 v240 n6 p80, Kirkus Reviews Feb 1, 1993 v61 p99 , Library Journal Feb 1, 1993 v118 n2 p116(1)

I knew for certain that they would be there when i saw the library holdings: libraries buy books on the basis of such reviews. The only way to find all reviews is with Book Review Index & Book Review Digest--all other sources are inadequate. I know most people here do not have access to them unless they actually go to a college or large public library, which I have learned is too much to expect. Therefore, I will always check these on request, but I would prefer to do so by being asked BEFORE it gets taken to AfD. Needless to say, reviews are the ideal secondary sources for showing the notability of a writer or any creative artist. DGG ( talk ) 02:50, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A problem with finding RS for contemporary authors is that most print publications have cut back on their book sections. A couple of years ago, there was a flurry of coverage about the effect on authors. Blog reviews are now considered more important to mid-list authors who lack the social network to nab the few plum print spots. It's also the case that even the most short-lived, critically panned TV crime show is likely to generate more MSM coverage than will the books of a mid-lister with reliable sales, serial publication, and maybe even an Edgar nom. In this case, however, DGG has produced an ample list of standard sources. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:05, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Per other editors above, it is clear she is a well-established author in her field. --DThomsen8 (talk) 14:11, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per editors above. I found 7 reviews and mentions in context of others authors in a google news archive search with the terms "Carol Berry" and "novel" in the search, see my link, Sadads (talk) 17:30, 29 May 2011 (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.