Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elaine Macmann Willoughby

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) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:56, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Elaine Macmann Willoughby[edit]

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

Appears not to be sufficiently notable for an article here, fails WP:AUTHOR. I find no indication of in-depth coverage. The COI does not help, but is not in itself a reason to delete. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:24, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 14:32, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 14:32, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This one may just need sourcing. I searched her first book "Risky Business" Found a blog post that says she was at Breadloaf.[1] It was reviewed in Kirkus, Publisher's Weekly , Horn Book, and The Journal of Library Work with Children. Sources seem to be out there.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:24, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP What perhaps misled the Nom is the fact that an author who was well-reviewed and widely read in the 50s, but whose work was perhaps not timeless, will not show well in a simple search. Even if she had only published under one, consistent name. You need to use news archive searches to find authors form other eras; I added a couple of sources after looking up only the first (maiden) name she wrote under and her first book. There are more. WP:NOTTEMPORARY. An author who was notable (as per reviews, inclusion in best books lists) n the 1950s through 1980s continues to be WP:N. The article continues to need expansion, sourcing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:25, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:26, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She also had two books selected for publication by Weekly Reader,[2][3] indicating that her works were textbook quality. I also found another review, which I cannot access from outside the US. [4]
Keep: Per new expansion and sourcing. SL93 (talk) 22:07, 7 May 2015 (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.