Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leslie Jamison

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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leslie Jamison[edit]

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

Delete. First time author, does not meet the criteria established at WP:AUTHOR. Article states that work has been published in Best New American Voices 2008, A Public Space, and Black Warrior Review. However, these were merely brief promotional blips rather than critical commentary. Author's first novel is not supported by significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Book does not meet the criteria for notability found at WP:NBOOK. Cind.amuse 16:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Leslie Jamison is a starting writer, however, her first novel was nominated for Art Seidenbaum Award for First Fiction, see a mention in LA Times. I found reviews in the San Francisco Chronicle, Time Out New York, Yale Daily News. It seems that the book was reviewed by Vogue and Buffalo News [1]. In my opinion, Leslie Jamison meets our notability criteria for authors. Wikipedia is an up-to-date encyclopedia and it should cover also the recent notable events in the world of literature. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 17:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 20:32, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Vejvančický. Her book has received coverage in multiple reliable sources including a starred review in PW, and there have also been multiple features and interviews (see links at her website[2] that can be used to flesh out the biographical information.--Arxiloxos (talk) 06:21, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & Redirect - After reading WP:NBOOK the book might meet the first cirteria, however, the author definitely does not meet WP:GNG. If there is sufficient information from secondary or tertiary reliable sources about the author to support her passing WP:BIO an article can always be spunout. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 17:53, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As Arxiloxos accurately noted, the verifiably linked third-party coverage accessible through the author's website demonstrates that she satisfies the GNG's requirements. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:57, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Hullaballoo.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:28, 11 March 2011 (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.