Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susane Colasanti

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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 17:30, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Susane Colasanti[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)

This author does not appear to meet notability requirements for an author. Authors must show significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. This author did publish a book, but the sources are mostly her own website and Kirkus reviews, the latter of which are a baseline industry standard and do not reflect significant coverage. Interviews listed in the references cannot be accessed when I clicked, and the only major review I could find online appears to be a user-submitted review, here. In my view, the article itself does not appear to follow MOS guidelines and is promotional and unencyclopedic in style, which could be fixed, but that would require reliable, independent sources, which are hard to come by. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 20:52, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. New information has been brought to this, and some editors have made strong points. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 22:32, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 October 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:19, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:54, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:54, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:54, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I was notified, but all I did was add the books, library holdings, translations, and some of the reviews. I want to thank Pyrrho the Skeptic for calling this to my attention--I left it a sparse but decent article 8 years ago, and was a little horrified to see what had become of it.S

As forr notability, she's in Gale Something About the Author, which used to be known as Dictionary of Literary Biography, the standard bibliographic reference work in the field. (Most large public and academic libraries have the set online.) This to me is a sufficient decisive factor, for WP includes all such authoritative subject biographical encyclopedias. Additionally there's a review in Bulletin of the Center for Children's Books the reviews in SLJ and Booklist, both from the American Library Association are brief, but they have consistently been held at AfDs as meeting the requirements for WP:AUTHOR. :I suspect it may not have realized that in spite of its popularist title, Something About he Author is part of the authoritative series of Gale biographical reference books. (I seem to remember that when a librarian I warned the publisher about using such a title).

The references to number of books in WorldCat libraries appears in thousand of our articles; it has not been recognized as a decisive factor, but it is suggestive. (for poplar work, there is a direct correlation between reviews in Booklist, SLJ, and LJ with public library holdings, for public libraries buy books on the basis of just those reviews). I do not rely on Kirkus, for some of its reviews are paid for (though not written) by the author in the case of self-published books--tho these books are not self-published , I consider such a compromise unacceptable, though I know others in WP have defended its use.

As for encyclopedic nature, I agree the teaching section must be removed. It were not in the article when i last saw it, in 2013--they we added a few days laterby another vwery prolific editor that year at [1] I suspect them, and many thousand other contributions of the now departed [[User::MrNiceGuy1113|

MrNiceGuy1113]], to be likely copypaste, and I have removed the section. i wouldn't object to removing a little more of it. DGG ( talk ) 07:22, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Certainly needs some cleanup, but she appears to have authored a body of notable works, so passes WP:NAUTHOR. pburka (talk) 15:37, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is established by independent, reliable sources, though. I don't see those sources. Do you? Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 15:51, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - The article includes (poorly formatted) citations showing many of her books were reviewed by Kirkus, School Library Journal, Publishers Weekly and more. These books would all pass WP:NBOOK. Are you claiming this is a WP:HOAX? If so, that's a different matter. pburka (talk) 15:55, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - All of those sources are publications that write short reviews for the industry to help libraries and booksellers make decisions. SLJ, for example, publishes 6,000 reviews a year. They are not really the same as general interest reviews for the public (NYTimes publishes only 20 - 30). Those industry sources are pretty standard, and not a sign of notablility, as opposed to just published by a major publisher, which is not, in and of itself, notable. In my interpretation, anyway. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 16:26, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - At AFD those are generally accepted as evidence of notability. They're specialty publications that focus on book reviews, so of course they publish more of them than a general newspaper might. 6,000 reviews is still very selective considering several million books are published each year. If you disagree with the guideline I suggest starting a discussion at WP:NBOOK, but I would oppose any change to disregard specialists in the field of book review such as Kirkus, LJ and PW. pburka (talk) 16:38, 13 October 2021 (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.