Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Helen Boyd

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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The result was speedy keep, nomination withdrawn Mach61 (talk) 23:50, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Helen Boyd[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Helen Boyd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't establish that she meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG. This has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve it. Boleyn (talk) 19:44, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

videos:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9Np7R0ZJTI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9YeLeMiMXuY 65.27.103.217 (talk) 21:35, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:NAUTHOR. @Boleyn and Oaktree b: please see the added reviews for both books. This is in addition to the sources the IP listed above. Best, Bridget (talk) 05:21, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    First two reviews are fine, the Jstor one helps, the rest are podcasts or personal appearances, which don't help notability but are useful to color the discussion. I'll adjust my !vote shortly. Oaktree b (talk) 16:02, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand how you are arriving at this count. There are six reviews listed in the article, three for each book, all in notable magazines or newspapers. None of these are "podcasts or personal appearances". —David Eppstein (talk) 23:36, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oaktree b, please see take a look at the article for the reviews I added in these two edits. I'm not only talking about what links the IP posted above, which seems to be what you are looking at. There are reviews in the Booklist, Kirkus Reviews, and Publishers Weekly (book review publications), and one in The Gay & Lesbian Review Worldwide, which seems to be a reputed LGBT academic journal. Best, Bridget (talk) 00:16, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I voted to keep it, it's a moot point. Oaktree b (talk) 01:13, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:AUTHOR and WP:HEY. The newly turned-up reviews are enough to convince me. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:31, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep the Jstor book review is the best, then Publishers Weekly and Kirkus. Rest given above are not helpful for notability but can help add to the discussion. Just barely passes notability. Oaktree b (talk) 16:04, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The threat of deletion has encouraged interested editors to toughen up the references in the last couple of days. I've just added two more myself (re Lambda Literary and On the Issues). I think the article should meet wiki standards now. Subvert47 (talk) 08:19, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Recent edits and source searches have clearly established notability. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:44, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw nomination I'm happy to be proved wrong. Thanks for your input, Boleyn (talk) 12:07, 18 January 2024 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Helen_Boyd&oldid=1197000019"