Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Helena Lewis

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. No prejudice to creating a properly sourced article about the book, if indeed it meets the appropriate notability criteria. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 02:15, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Helena Lewis[edit]

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

Biography of a writer, which is really more of a WP:COATRACK for her book than it is about her, as such -- and the only "reference" present here at all is the publication details of the book, which does not represent reliable source coverage about her for the purposes of clearing either WP:GNG or WP:NAUTHOR. There's simply not enough referencing, or enough actual substance, present here. Bearcat (talk) 00:25, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:34, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was unable to find much information on Lewis. However, I have referenced her book on other pages that I have edited and so I wanted to create a link to her. I feel that her book, Dada Turns Red, is an extremely important book in the history of Surrealism. Even if she has only a very small bio, I feel she merits inclusion here. Rather than trying to get this entry deleted, I would hope that you could find more online references to her than I did.Fluffysingler (talk) 02:40, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If the book is important enough and can be reliably sourced as such, then an article about the book would be a perfectly appropriate thing for us to have. But we can't exempt a book's writer from having to be reliably sourceable just because somebody asserts that the book was important — notability is not inherited. So if the book is important enough, then the book is the thing we should maintain an article about, but that doesn't require us to maintain a poorly sourced standalone biography of the author separately from that. Bearcat (talk) 16:56, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:29, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:29, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Insert CleverPhrase Here 09:45, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Userfy: I agree with Bearcat that there is not enough here to establish biographical notability. My own searches indicate the subject probably chairing meetings at a Harvard Humanities Center in the early 2000s but not enough to add and reference. The text of the article is really about her book (about which I recall writing a review); perhaps it is best if the article creator recrafts the article to be about the book and resubmits if its notability can be demonstrated?. AllyD (talk) 12:48, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails the GNG and is about her book. I am not opposed to it being removed from the mainspace into some other space though, but I don't see her being notable. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 15:41, 24 July 2017 (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.