Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adrienne deWolfe

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, after good effort made to determine notability. Mojo Hand (talk) 20:46, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adrienne deWolfe[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't confirm notability and am having trouble even with verifying the claims or even treating some of claims entirely seriously. Being on a top 100 list for 7 months, even if it's true, is not an "award", and I can't figure out how to verify such a thing anyway. When I Google K.I.S.S. Award at Romantic Times, or Cameo Award and exclude results that mention deWolfe, there are fewer than 30 entries each, generally about just a couple of other writers, leading me to conclude that the awards themselves aren't notable. (Spelling out "knight in shining silver award" doesn't help much.) I see nothing about Readers' Choice Awards on the Avon Books website. —Largo Plazo (talk) 02:00, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm nominating articles about a book and a book series for which I also don't find much.

Velvet lies
Wild Texas Nights

—Largo Plazo (talk) 02:07, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Romance seems a tricky genre for which to show notability, for historical reasons relating to reader gender, publisher ghettoization, and lack of mainstream attention. By Wikipedia:Other_stuff_exists, this page would not seem out of place here List_of_romantic_novelists, although even by that standard quite weakly sourced.Kschlot1 (talk) 02:55, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'll say offhand that most of the stuff on award section don't count towards notability. Sales figures mean nothing when it comes to notability on Wikipedia. Good sales make it more likely something would gain coverage, but it's never guaranteed and I've seen NYT bestsellers get zero attention. Heck, I've seen authors regularly hit the NYTBL and still never gain enough coverage to get an article for themselves, so sales mean nothing regardless of where it is, although I'll say that Amazon sales always seem to be gained more easily because they have such small categories that make it easier for people to say they're a bestseller in one category or another. Now as far as the Romantic Times stuff goes, the "editor's pick" just means that it was a book that was reviewed that the reviewer really liked. It looks a lot better than the normal stuff, but in the end it'd be considered essentially the same as if it was a regular review since this isn't an award or recognition that would give absolute notability. The same goes for awards given by the RT. The awards would count towards notability but they're not the type of award that would keep an article on that award alone. However the problem with the RT awards is that a mass of RT awards wouldn't really be considered to be enough to keep on that basis alone as far as our guidelines go. Now if she'd won the RITA Award, this would be a completely different story since that's a very prestigious award, but deWolfe didn't win and nominations don't give notability. Only wins give notability. So far all we have to go by are a large amount of awards by one specific trade outlet. The awards are respected, but they're sort of the type that would count towards notability but not absolute notability. I'll see if I can find anything out there, but so far there isn't a huge amount of stuff going in the author's favor and the page as a whole is reading like a puff page. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:32, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of small categories, I'm guessing that the categories must have been dwindling at RT because I notice that the number of sub-sub-genres under the Historical Romance subgenre fell evenly from 14 in 1995 to none in 2013. Anyway, well done, because I for some reason wasn't able to find the award history section on the RT site when I'd looked. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:43, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. After a search, I couldn't really find anything that would show that deWolfe passes WP:NAUTHOR. I'd initially thought she had won a RT award, but she hasn't. ([1]) deWolfe was only nominated. The Calico Trails Magazine doesn't really seem to be the type of place where an award would mean anything on here, not even partial notability. Now a RWA award does help, but the problem is that this is a chapter award and not an award given from the larger organization, which does make a huge difference. That makes this the type of award that would give a little notability but isn't something that would give a huge amount of notability. In the end all we have are a handful of reviews from one location (RT) and a review from a local chapter of RWA. There's just not enough here to show a depth of coverage enough to where she'd pass. If anyone can dig anything up, that's great. I'll edit the article in the meantime to remove all of the puffery and clearly promotional intent in anticipation of someone finding something. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:46, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. I'm cleaning up some alternate text I'd left down here. In any case, I forgot to say that the books should be deleted as well. They're not independently notable outside of the author. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:55, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't know much about the Romantic genre but agree with Tokyogirl79's assessment and unable to find anything compelling enough to justify a Keep vote. Typically the authors themselves will post the best reviews on their website, which is the case here, but the review sources are mostly unreliable or Romantic Times. Also tangentially the number of user holdings at LibraryThing is pretty low, while not a reason to delete it does strongly suggest the author is not notable, and time consuming searches in commercial databases would probably be fruitless. -- GreenC 07:19, 22 January 2014 (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.