Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elissa Ambrose

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. No consensus for Meagan McKinney, teh rest will be deleted. Courcelles 21:14, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elissa Ambrose[edit]

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

These are unsourced/poorly sourced biographies of living people. Any sources actually on the articles point to publisher websites, personal websites, or otherwise unreliable sources. The authors in question write category romance books; their novels are available in stores for only 1 month and then removed from shelves. I can find no reviews of these works (except at www.rtbookreviews, but they review ALL romance novels published) and no independent coverage of the careers or personal lives of the authors. Therefore, I think they fail WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR and should be deleted. Karanacs (talk) 21:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for Ambrose. Does not meet WP:AUTHOR. Her literary magazine is not on the radar screen Vrivers (talk) 11:04, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can we please separate out these AFDs. Peake and Bevan are far more established than the others; Peake is likely notable, as she's in many libraries, and was quite an innovator for romance in her day. Admitted COI: I love her books! Vrivers (talk) 11:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Close and list separately. There's no reason to think that these articles should stand or fall together, so any proper examination of notability needs separate examination for each subject. This will be next to impossible to do in a combined discussion as editors will come up with different combinations of which ones to keep and which to delete, making it next to impossible for the poor closing admin to evaluate consensus. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for Ambrose; others should be renominated separately. Ambrose does not meet WP:AUTHOR. References provided are not WP:Reliable sources, and none are found at Google or Google News. --MelanieN (talk) 13:40, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the request for decoupling - this is the third time I've nominated these types of authors in a group and the first time there's been any pushback. They all meet the same criteria - authors who wrote primarily category romance books and who do not seem to meet wP:AUTHOR - no significant reviews of their works, no major awards won, no independent analysis of the works or coverage of the author to justify an article. Having written a lot of books is not one of the criteria for inclusion. I would remove an author from the list if any independent, reliable sources could be brought forward for that author. Karanacs (talk) 15:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK then. Taking them one at a time:

Meagan McKinney: Keep Numerous references are found at Google News (for example [1]). Some are behing paywalls and can't be evaluated - but their mere existence suggests notability.
Kim Lawrence: Delete Nothing found. .
Lillian Peake: Weak delete Hard to evaluate since she wrote decades ago - if she was notable then she is notable now, but it's hard to prove. Bloggers do comment about her, but I can't find anything that would count as a reliable source.
Gloria Bevan: Weak delete Same problem - not a current author so hard to find anything. A lot of blogger interest but again nothing reliable.
I wouldn't be surprised if both Peake and Bevan are notable within their genre, but I can't prove it. --MelanieN (talk) 14:42, 18 September 2010 (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.