Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A. R. Morlan

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 per clear consensus. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 20:01, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A. R. Morlan[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 WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. Lacks significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. The article cites only five sources. Two are website of publishers associated with the subject; these are not independent of the subject and are primary sources, which can't be used to establish notability (see WP:PRIMARY). One is from a personal website which isn't generally accepted as a reliable source, according to WP:USERG. The other two are short obituaries; I don't think obituaries can be used to establish notability since almost any deceased person can get one. There is no evidence that the subject's work has been considered influential, widely reviewed, subjected to critical attention or won any awards. JMB1980 (talk) 17:35, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Science fiction and fantasy, Sexuality and gender, Illinois, and Wisconsin. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:38, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the obituaries are not enough on their own to show notability and the rest of the sources are just not enough to show that the subject is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:25, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BASIC/WP:GNG. Similar to other authors with Asperger's syndrome recently brought to AfD by this nominator, an online search finds multiple book reviews, e.g. Kirkus Reviews, Publishers Weekly, Foreword Reviews, a 2014 author spotlight by Nightmare Magazine, and more than a trivial mention in a 1995 Washington Post book review article, in addition to the obituaries in the article, which includes the science fiction magazine Locus. On the Wikipedia Library, via Gale, there is an extensive biography of her writing career from St. James Guide to Horror, Ghost & Gothic Writers and an extensive biography of her career from Gale Literature: Contemporary Authors. Beccaynr (talk) 23:26, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Beccaynr (talk) 23:31, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Beccaynr. --Rosiestep (talk) 01:21, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the provided sources. The encyclopedia entry in Gale, in particular, is the kind of tertiary coverage that is unusual to find and a very strong indicator of notability. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 02:36, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Beccaynr, and the article has grown some since this discussion opened. This author has been included in well-known anthologies with other notable writers, including Steven King and Neil Gaiman. An article about them is useful and justified. Penny Richards (talk) 02:44, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, sorry everybody but what do we do when we see an article that mentions fantasy/sci fi? "give us an I, give us an S, give us an FDB, and what does it spell?", ISFDB, entering Moran's name gives us lots of works, here, trolling thru them brings up listings of reviews in The Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction for The Cat with the Tulip Face (here), Locus for Dark Journey (here), and Cemetery Dance for Smothered Dolls (here), adding these to what has been discussed above its a keep from me as meeting WP:NAUTHOR. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:27, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and good work to the editors who have expanded the sourcing on this. Nice job. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:07, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—additional research here clearly demonstrates the subject meets both GNG and NAUTHOR. Trout to nominator for failure to do the fairly simple checks others have done here. Montanabw^(talk) 05:17, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as per Penny Richards comments Lajmmoore (talk) 08:56, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above. WP:SNOW also applies. gidonb (talk) 16:30, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Beccaynr, passes WP:GNG. Jeni Wolf (talk) 15:54, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Beccaynr, passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:04, 24 March 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.