Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donna Fletcher Crow

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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:20, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Donna Fletcher Crow[edit]

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

Recommending deletion, as subject does not appear to be the recipient of non-trivial coverage from reliable, independent sources. The only coverage of substance I was able to locate was published as a press release via PR Newswire. There is a secondary concern that this article was created by an individual with a conflict of interest. It was added to Wikipedia by Pcrow (talk · contribs) on 19 July 2008‎ with later edits introduced by Donna Fletcher Crow (talk · contribs). Please do not hesitate to contact me if evidence of significant coverage is located during the course of this discussion. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 19:12, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:19, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added a few sources to article. More out there waiting to be hunted down, sifted form a haze of publisher's press releases. She clearly sells a lot of books. And gets a little press attention.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:42, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added some other sources as well, and started adding ISBN numbers to her bibliography. She has been reviewed in RS, has two non-trivial biographical pieces written about her and smaller pieces about her work in the news. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:02, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with the added sources there is enough coverage to pass GNG. Jbh ^Talk 15:04, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm concerned about how many current citations are behind various logins. Still, however, the author's coverage goes beyond just the local publications reporting on her work that you often sees in these kinds of biographical pages. She's also referred to by wider national publications and books such as this one, which go into her work in depth. The award from the National Federation of Press Women is a particularly interesting honor. The article probably still needs some work, but I think it passes the general notability bar. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:15, 1 June 2016 (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.