Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lynn Joseph

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:37, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lynn Joseph[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)

Fails a WP:BEFORE search. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 23:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 23:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 23:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 23:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Her books have been the subject of six Kirkus reviews, two of them starred. Easily passes WP:NAUTHOR#3 as the creator of a significant and well-known body of work. pburka (talk) 23:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NAUTHOR#3 - I found nine Kirkus reviews and five from Publishers Weekly [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. Beccaynr (talk) 04:38, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Geschichte (talk) 06:55, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment per WP:HEY, reviews from Kirkus, Publishers Weekly, Booklist and the School Library Journal, a link to a biography published by Gale Literature: Contemporary Authors (2014), and information about various awards have been added to the article. Beccaynr (talk) 17:22, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not really a HEY, though. These sources can all easily be found. They should have been found by the nom in their BEFORE. pburka (talk) 17:56, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am always in the mood of shouting HEY! happily whenever someone actually adds the sources to the article, instead of just stating them in the discussion (which I too have been guilty of on occasion). Moreover, the nominator's statement, while given in good faith, has been demonstrated to be patently untrue, and the discussion now meets WP:SKCRIT. Geschichte (talk) 21:25, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems to be a lot of reviews of her work, indicating notability *though* a lot of them are in the one title, Kirkus Reviews, which I'm not sure is a good example of RS if its publishing a high volume of reviews rather than being selective. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:50, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Since when do we nominate authors with this coverage and publication pedigree for deletion? Cannot make sense using WP:NAUTHOR standards. She is being mentioned alongside of her publications in academic journals since 1999. We need more articles about her books, actually. Caballero/Historiador^⎌ 08:06, 19 January 2022 (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.