Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gail Carriger

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:49, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gail Carriger[edit]

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

This is an article on someone who has been nominated for an award but not won it, with no independent sources (the interview is clearly not independent). This looks like a clear case of WP:NOTYET, though obviously better than the copyvio we deleted. Guy (Help!) 18:44, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The interview is independent - she's had two books (the third is being released in September) published by Orbit Books, and the interview is with Tor Books. Orb Books is an imprint of Tor, but Orbit is not. Two books published by a major publisher, plus one on the verge of being published, plus at least one more in the works (as per her website), equals notability. (And the 2010 Campbell Award hasn't been given yet.) DS (talk) 19:34, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No interview is independent, by definition. Guy (Help!) 21:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the reasons stated by DS. harej 19:45, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, and Locus put her on their Recommended Reading List for 2009 (I've added the ref to the article). DS (talk) 23:01, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article should be deleted for the reasons stated herein. 74.66.89.144 (talk) 05:50, 14 August 2010 (UTC) JP]][reply]

Keep It appears that there are going to be five books in the series, and it's going to have a final end there, according to her website. The publication schedule, nomination for the Campbell, and Lotus recommendation, in my eyes, is sufficient. Thanks for pointing out what sounds like ideal beach reading. htom (talk) 19:50, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ keep books published by a major publisher, entry on Best Seller list, though sources seem scant in a search. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Borderline keep - I'd like to see better referencing, but with what is there I think we can just barely determine notability. It's on pretty shaky ground though. Triona (talk) 00:06, 18 August 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.