Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diana Ross (author)

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) Wine Guy~Talk 11:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Diana Ross (author)[edit]

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

Does not meet notability guidelines wp:note Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 17:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Little Red Engine is a well-known children's book and the author has been the subject of significant media coverage: [1]. Warrah (talk) 18:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't find much in-depth media coverage in the links within the provided google news search. The only in-depth coverage I saw were obituaries. The publication of an obituary, in itself, is not very strong evidence for notability. However, much of the valid in-depth coverage is very likely not available online. -Verdatum (talk) 20:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree about obituary. Some years ago obituaries where common and published for many. To save money over the years most newspapers have stopped publishing them. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 20:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're overlooking that the link I provided offers more than just obituaries (which, on their own terms, should be enough to secure WP:GNG). This link [2] from a 1953 Australian newspaper defines Ms. Ross' "Little Red Engine" as a classic. The author and her works are not non-notable. Warrah (talk) 20:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One sentence that says the book is a classic doesn't seem sufficient to make the author notable. There are other versions of the story that are classics, The Little Engine That Could, but the authors of those books don't have a page. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 22:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the basis of WorldCat authorities a long series of books; when Children's books from the 1940-60s are still held by hundreds of libraries, the author is notable. For definitive evidence, there's a feature retrospective discussion of the series in the Times literary supplement [3] . NYTtimes reviews of one of the books [4]. There's even an article in New Scientist [5]. The author had an full obit in the Independent. [6] and the Guardian [7]. Contra, some of the comments, the publication of multiple true obits in major national publications is a very strong evidence of notability, I see no basis in policy for saying otherwise--it is true that the sort of obituary coverage a local newspaper gives local figures is not proof of notability, but that's a very different matter. DGG ( talk ) 04:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was on the fence until reading DGG's argument. It's a good point that it's uncommon for books so old to still have circulation; and a good point that separate obituaries were published, indicating that this was not just a copy-paste press-release situation. -Verdatum (talk) 20:58, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per DGG.Edward321 (talk) 01:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: per DGG. - Ret.Prof (talk) 00:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I concur with others that multiple obits in major circulation dailies are sufficient to establish notability. -- 16:58, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
'Keep - agree with DGG's reasoning. PaleAqua (talk) 09:01, 21 February 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.