Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeannette Ng

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. Not a very strong consensus, but I can think that I can safely say that considering a book to be a case of BLP1E is quite unorthodox. We regularly consider authors of a notable book to be notable themselves by virtue of WP:AUTHOR, so the question is whether the book has enough coverage - and the balance of the discussion seems to be that it has. Sandstein 16:59, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jeannette Ng[edit]

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

So author of only 1 book "Under the Pendulum Sun".. fails WP:AUTHOR.. perhaps WP:NotJustYet.. Saqib (talk) 09:12, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:14, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:14, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Her book Under the Pendulum Sun has been reviewed by many sources and was included on a list of "The best science fiction and fantasy of 2017" by The Guardian [1] and was also named one of the "10 Best Sci-Fi and Fantasy Books of 2017" by SYFY.[2] The author is also currently a finalist for the 2018 John W. Campbell Award for Best New Writer and has been shortlisted for other awards. I believe they pass WP:AUTHOR because their work "has won significant critical attention." Lonehexagon (talk) 00:32, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It appears the book is notable and may warrant an article but not the author. Apparently she has received coverage and attention due to this one book so I think WP:BLP1E applies here. --Saqib (talk) 05:25, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP1E is specifically about "Subjects notable only for one event." In this article, the sources cover the contents of the book, not the event of it being published or some other particular date. Additionally, WP:BLP1E only applies "If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented." In this case, the individual's role was substantial and well-documented (she is the author), and although I don't think a book is an event, if it is considered an event, I would say it's significant due to all the coverage. Lastly, WP:AUTHOR specifically states an author may be notable if the "person's work (or works)" "has won significant critical attention." This author's work has received that. Lonehexagon (talk) 01:03, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this doesn't seem to me to be a correct application of WP:BLP1E. Looking at the three criteria for that policy (all of which should apply), I'm not sure any of them do. (1) Do the reliable sources only mention Ng in the context of a single 'event'? No - while that is the great majority of the coverage, the Bookseller report on Not So Stories, including a quote from Ng, relates to an entirely separate work and does not mention Under the Pendulum Sun. (2) Does she remain and is likely to remain a low profile individual? No - she has claims to notability as an individual as well as for the book (e.g. the John W Campbell award is for an author, not a work) and it can reasonably be expected that she will have future publications. (3) Is her involvement not substantial or not well-documented? No - her involvement as author is clearly fundamental to the 'event' (book). It's possible that she will be judged non-notable for other reasons, but WP:BLP1E would seem to me the wrong basis to use. TSP (talk) 12:59, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I think with so many speculative fiction books being published, to get any sort of mention is important, particularly when the review has been written as strange, brooding and occasionally perverse debut by Adam Roberts of the Guardian, on 30 Nov 2017. It the book is notable, the author not yet. Possibly WP:TOOSOON for her, although it is tremendous effort of creative will to write a book, and in my opinion, if the book is worth reading, the author is worth an article, although it is not WP's rule.scope_creep (talk) 11:11, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:13, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Ng's book is notable so we could have a standalone article for it with a redirect from author that can be developed into an article when she has done more. (ps. i know WP:AUTHOR allows for one significant/well known work (point no. 3) but this is really for the Harper Lees of this world).Coolabahapple (talk) 00:33, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now: In ~~2 weeks~~ a few days' time (Amazon says 19 Apr but Goodreads and other booksellers say 10 April) she'll be the author of one of the stories in a published anthology (already in Worldcat and reviewed at Goodreads) - can we wait and see if it gets substantial reviews? And the nomination for John W. Campbell Award for Best New Writer is not just for the one novel but "the best new writer whose first professional work of science fiction or fantasy was published within the two previous calendar years": "the Campbell Award is not given explicitly for any particular work". Though nominations aren't notability, and there's no indication when the winner will be announced. PamD 12:24, 6 April 2018 (UTC) Updated re publication date: PamD 12:35, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:CREATIVE; it may well merely be WP:TOOSOON for this author of one book that lacks reviews or WP:SIGCOV. Nominaitons for a genre award and inclusion of a story in a published collection of short stories do not notability confer. Fan enthusiasm is great, but the kind of sourcing we need to see is just not out there at this time.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:46, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You think the whole article should be deleted, not even renamed to be about the book? Lonehexagon (talk) 17:28, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. a single "Ten Best" listing in a category list does not carry an AUTHOR past WP:AUTHOR. You could (WP:HEYMANN) change my mind by pointing me to the book reviews you mention, but the review has to be in a significant publication. Note that reviews in Publisher's Weekly do not contribute to notability since Pub. Weekly runs a review of every book flagged as significant by a publisher. Ping me if you can persuade me with solid sources. I am always willing to change an iVote when presented with solid sourcing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:56, 9 April 2018 (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.