Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catherine Mann

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. (non-admin closure) ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 14:54, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine Mann[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)

They may have written many romance titles, but I can find nothing substantial about this author in reliable sources. A promotional article that does not appears to meet the crietria set out in WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 11:28, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:46, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:46, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable at this time and not written in an encyclopedic style WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:21, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:45, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:NAUTHOR. Very hard to find sources because there are several authors with the same name. However FictionDB is helpful here and shows starred Publisher's Weekly reviews for Rescue Me and Shelter Me. They also reviewed Guardian. Additionally, I found some scholarly interest in her writing, e.g. "The warrior woman in Harlequin’s Bombshell Athena Force series", "Speaking through the flesh: Affective encounters, gazes and desire in Harlequin romances" and "The Militarized Shape-Shifter: Authorized Violence and Military Connections as an Antidote to Monstrosity". pburka (talk) 18:50, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking at this pburka. So your feeling is that she passes WP:NAUTHOR (3) due to her role creating the collective "body of work" of Harlequin romance novels, as covered by the academic work? I was only able to access one of those academic sources, and it looked like only a categorical mention. Honestly, the Keep case seems really weak to me here. Is two starred Publisher's Weekly reviews sufficient to meet WP:NAUTHOR (4)? Suriname0 (talk) 16:23, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The starred reviews are a bonus. It looks like PW has reviewed at least *eight* of her books (click on the "more by..." button), which is surely a "collective body of work", and the academic papers certainly give us some interesting material to write about her specifically in the context of an author of military romances. Library Journal also briefly reviewed the anthology, Way of the Warrior, and I think Kirkus reviewed at least one of her books, too: Rumors shows up in their search but the link is broken. And she won a 2003 RITA award for Taking Cover. Even if none of these books is individually notable, that they're consistently attracting the attention of reviewers is noteworthy. pburka (talk) 17:19, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:06, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per pburka's expanded comments. Suriname0 (talk) 17:27, 16 July 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.