Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harriet Walker

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. The keep arguments largely cite non policy based arguments Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:57, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Harriet Walker[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

very minor author--Worldcat shows "Less is More in 113 libraries, but each of the other is fewer than 10--a single barely ` successful book does not make a notable author. The references are almost all the publisher or the bookseller, The Times "reference" is just her own byline as an ocassional commentator there, the Independent one is an article she wrote, not a review of her work. . The editors works seems to be mostly similarly nonnotale individuals. DGG ( talk ) 00:29, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, her novel was published this month! Are libraries and Worldcat really functioning that well during lockdown? Johnbod (talk) 17:52, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Libraries are buying books. E-books, usually, but that still counts in worldcat. (Libraries have the unique funding situation that they must each year spend al the money they are allotted .). DGG ( talk ) 03:32, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A very US-only answer! I doubt that's really true even in the US, still less in the UK, where all libraries are closed and the staff at home on "furlough". And actually, in the UK and I expect the US, having to spend the budget within the budget year is entirely normal for all government spending (with dire results). Johnbod (talk) 16:39, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete fails WP:NAUTHOR, WP:NJOURNALIST, and WP:GNG. A semi-notable book and being Fashion editor of The Times does not one notable make. I found a total of three short reviews of her work (two of which were of The New Girl). Seems to be widely published however, so a few more book reviews or the like would probably push her over the edge if they are found. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:09, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, notability is not inherited. dibbydib ^boop or _snoop 01:11, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:15, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:15, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:15, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:22, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 02:22, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:26, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am improving the article - and have added sources and accomplished some clean up. The subject is a notable writer/expert and meets the requirements for WP:ANYBIO#2. In addition the subject has authored three books: two on fashion and one is a novel. She likely passes WP:AUTHOR#1 at this time as well; in any event the books further show her notability and expertise in her field. Lightburst (talk) 16:16, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Really? WP:AUTHOR#1? "widely cited by peers or successors"? That's quite a claim. Only a very small minority of authors fall into that category.

If you ever add sources to the article that support that claim, be sure to mention it here. ApLundell (talk) 17:29, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning keep. She's quoted five times in Bradford's Fashion Journalism (Routledge; 2019) and twice in Sikarskie's Digital Research Methods in Fashion and Textile Studies (Bloomsbury; 2020); she's cited in this conference paper, this peer reviewed paper, and this one. pburka (talk) 18:00, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP She is cited as an expert in her field by her peers. What has been found by others I believe proves this person is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. Dream Focus 15:26, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NAUTHOR, WP:NJOURNALIST, and WP:GNG Angryskies (talk) 10:43, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:54, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Being fashion editor of The Times makes her important in her field and so she passes WP:NJOURNALIST. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:35, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no automatic notability in being a departmental editor. Maybe for editor-in-chief, but there is no presumption that there are significant independent sources for holding this job, nor are there shown to be. Being quoted a few times is not basis for notability without coverage about her. Reywas92^Talk 21:45, 5 June 2020 (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.