Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rebecca Maye Holiday

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:38, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Maye Holiday[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)

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. I am not seeing any WP:SIGCOV (there is an interview and another one, both look like weak WP:INTERVIEWs), she published a few books but neither she nor the books have attracted much coverage, so she fails WP:NAUTHOR. And the fact the creator of this has been banned as a sock of an account with some BLP issues doesn't help. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:26, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Literature, France, and Canada. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:26, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no book reviews found other than on various seller sites, no coverage of the author in media sources. Even limiting it to .ca sites, not much of anything turns up. Industry Canada site (I suppose she's gotten a grant from the gov't of Canada), no coverage otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 15:48, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Six of the 11 footnotes here are of the "book circularly referenced to itself" variety, which is not support for notability — you don't make a writer notable by citing her books to themselves as verification that they exist, you make a writer notable by citing her books to reliable source coverage about them as verification that they got independent attention from real media. But none of the other five non-circular footnotes are proper support for notability either, comprising user-generated directories like GoodReads and blogs rather than WP:GNG-worthy media coverage. Bearcat (talk) 13:46, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. pburka (talk) 14:15, 29 September 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.