Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/C.J. Tudor

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 no consensus. Sandstein 05:28, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

C.J. Tudor[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)

not yet notable author . one book , just published, with unenthusiastic reviews, all en DGG ( talk ) 02:05, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:24, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:24, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete publishing a book is not a default sign of notability. That is the only measure of notability that would make Tudor notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:55, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:33, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per DGG. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:12, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a quick gNews search shows 5 reviews in major daily papers [1], some positive, and a simple google search shows that Penguin has announced two novels schheduled for publication in 2019. Threre is also an article in a local paper about a positive review tweeted by Stephen King.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:37, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:22, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Per available book reviews found via source searches, meets point #3 of WP:AUTHOR, with the author's work having received "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". Some of the reviews are more extensive than others, but overall, meets point #3. See source examples below. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:03, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

The Hindu
Irish Independent
Associated Press
Kirkus Reviews
Kirkus Reviews
Publishers Weekly

Keep on account of multiple and extensive coverage of both subject and her work in reliable sources, as the search by Northamerica1000 above indicates. Meets WP:NAUTHOR. Small, irrelevant remark: Most of the reviews I found to be rather positive. -The Gnome (talk) 13:04, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:15, 16 June 2018 (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.