Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deborah Leslie

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. The consensus is that Leslie does not meet the criteria for inclusion at this time - if signficant coverage occurs in the future, it can be recreated. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deborah Leslie[edit]

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

failed 1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.
failed 2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
failed 3. The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
failed 4. The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.
not applicable 5. See Wikipedia:Notability (academics) for guidelines on academics

Her books are difficult to find for sale, published reviews are impossible to find. The one newspaper mention of her (book launch) was not a very important or significant event. This is a vanity page for self promotion and nothing more. Vinithehat (talk) 15:07, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the grounds that she is a published author writing in Mid Northern Scots (or Doric), which is (I gather) a rarity. Assuming that Mid Northern Scots is a genuine dialect (which I don't have reason do doubt), this makes her body of work of potential scholarly interest. Herostratus (talk) 17:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just doing something rare does not satisfy Wikipedia's guidelines for notability, nor does speculation that scholars might find her work interesting. We need evidence that they have already given her work substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources. Edison (talk) 21:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable Dreamspy (talk) 22:35, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. —Deskford (talk) 23:30, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, without prejudice to reposting with further evidence of notability, or future achivements. Book launches are easy to orchestrate if you're prepared to pay for them, so they're not really evidence of notability alone. So I fell back to the General Notability Guideline, and two articles in a paper that covers Northern Scotland isn't enough in my opinion. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 07:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Quite apart from her work on Doric, she seems to me to pass Wikipedia:Notability (books). I can't agree that the P&J does not qualify as credible newspaper coverage. It may well be aimed at Northern Scotland but its circulation is larger than either of the other two Scottish broadsheets, (which are based in the more populous Central Belt). The google search "deborah leslie inverurie" does not return hundreds of hits but enough I would suggest. Ben Mac Dui 18:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which book and which of the criteria? Vinithehat (talk) 20:59, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first of the criteria and certainly Flumphaderries etc., which would appear to be on its third print run. Not bad for a book that I suspect most anglphones would struggle to make sense of. Ben Mac Dui 07:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying a local paper is invalid as a reliable source, but I would expect sustained coverage over a period of time. People get articles written about them in local papers for all sorts of trivial reasons (I know I have). The third print run could mean anything depending on how many book were printed the first two times. And as for the first criteria, I would want at least some evidence from a reliable source that an individual is regarded as an important figure. The two concrete claims we have is the play she has had performed, and the actual number of books sold. However, I searched for "The Clock on the Waa" and got zero independent coverage. I'm not convinced that sales in thousands is enough for notability, but I will concede to any experts from Wikiproject books who knows more about that. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 16:58, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Mid Northern Scots as her notability doesn't seem to be enough for a stand-alone article but her books should be mentioned in that article. If she becomes more notable then the information can be de-merged. Dingo1729 (talk) 16:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
do not merge Merging what may be a minor author to an article about the extremely notable subject is undue weight. If she's notable, then an article is justified, but otherwise we are essentially publicising the unimportant--unless we are going to take the occasion to do a complete bibliography on the subject. I know the suggestion was meant well, but this is a standard technique of spammers, & I've been removing additions like this as I see them, which is often. The few authors mentioned in the main article should be the most important in their periods-- for example, the listing & the article on Sheena Blackhall is justified. DGG ( talk ) 03:06, 13 September 2010 (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.