Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emily Jane Moore

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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:22, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Jane Moore[edit]

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

I cannot find a single piece of evidence that proves any of the information in the article is true. It lack critical information that usually belongs in a biography including citations, date and location of birth and death, family, photos, and significance to history. While some of the works she supposedly done can be found online, I was unable any proof that they were popular or notable enough to merit an article for the author. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 22:27, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I did a search on Bing and only found unrelated hits and Wikipedia mirrors. While a lack of search engine hits doesn't always mean a lack of notability (or even existence) it's usually a pretty good indicator. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 22:59, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete The subject seems to have been a very prolific children's writer, and the British Library catalogue contains a number of titles not listed here, whilst they do not have several of those in the article. For Nicholson's to have published her stories so prolifically, they must have sold. The problem is to determine notability, and the absence of coverage on the internet is hardly conclusive - children's writers tend not to be covered in literary biographies and the like precisely because their books are rarely of interest to the literary establishment and it is not Ms Moore's notability now that matters, it is her notability then. Having said that, the absence of evidence that she made any real impact at the time other than as a writer of ephemeral stories points to deletion. --AJHingston (talk) 23:11, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I tried a search on ProQuest, which has lots of 19th C content, as well as on Google Books, but got nothing relevant (aside from her own books on Google Books). --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:41, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—If source-hunters come up empty, then WP:V is violated and we're done here... Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 00:56, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. We have verified that she wrote lots of books, because they do emerge in searches on the British Library catalogue, in Google Books and other search locations. None has a comprehensive list, and it is clear that few copies survive in libraries, but that just shows that the article could be expanded with further research. It is information about the author that is missing, and it could even be that the name is a pseudonym, but that is no bar to an entry because it is as writer of these books, not her private life, that matters here. The question must be whether her books make her notable enough for an article. --AJHingston (talk) 08:29, 20 April 2012 (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.