Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susan M. Campbell (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. ✗plicit 00:38, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Susan M. Campbell

[edit]
AfDs for this article:

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

Susan M. Campbell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

General notability guideline(/WP:BASIC) -- lack of secondary/independent sources + no significant coverage. Doesn't appear to meet notability guidelines for academics either. Comment(s) on talk page show that verification of any information is an ongoing issue. Tagged for peacock, advert, and tone since Feb 2010. I tried to fix the issues prior to filing this AfD. Puppies937 (talk) 15:45, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is an unbolded Keep argument here which makes Soft Deletion inappropriate.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:07, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep The four sources added by pburka show just enough coverage in reliable, secondary sources. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:55, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is true that there are some book reviews, but I don't find that be sufficient to support an article about an author. There is one rather gossipy review in the SF Examiner; a single paragraph in Publishers' Weekly; a single page in Library journal. The Key West Journal and Communities also provide gossipy reviews, and neither is what I would consider to be a major publication of book reviews. Most of what is in the article about the person is from a non-independent source. Lamona (talk) 03:05, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Counting pburka's comment as a call for retention, I still don't see consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 01:05, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not voting directly since I haven't looked for sources myself, but if what we have in the article is all we've got, I'd say this isn't a pass of WP:GNG or WP:NAUTHOR. -- asilvering (talk) 01:59, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. GNG dictates widespread coverage in independent sources. Doing a cursory search of the sources leads to Lamona's conclusion. There are references, but, for the most part, they are minor and few enough as to not satisfy the widespread coverage usually required. One single paragraph and one single page isn't enough to satisfy notability.  GuardianH  03:35, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not pass WP:AUTHOR. The third guideline says that the author must have "created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work" and said work has been the subject of multiple independent reviews. Having reviews alone is not sufficient. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthnope (talk • contribs) 05:25, 12 February 2025 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Susan_M._Campbell_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1276467168"