Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Noreen Brownlie

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. Insufficiently sourced. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:32, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Noreen Brownlie[edit]

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

Non-notable author, espically since none of her books have a wiki themselves. No sources since October of 2009, and a possible COI. Battleaxe9872 ^Talk 14:56, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article simply needs expansion and sourcing. This author is notable with nine novels published by Harlequin, an industry leading publisher of women's fiction. Existence of separate Wikipedia articles of published works is not indicative of notability. While the subject may have been the original author, COI is not sufficient reason to delete. Cindamuse (talk) 17:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possible keep. IF the author is prominent and one can find sources to support that, then keep. Willbennett2007 (talk) 22:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Having written several romance novels is not a sufficient reason by itself for an author to have a Wikipedia article. That genre is not generally regarded as serious literature. Romance novels generally are cranked out in huge numbers and have a short shelf life, being termed something like "Issue #513 of Silhouette Desire." I could find nothing at Google News archive which would satisfy WP:Author. Google Book, besides her romance novels, some mention (no preview online) in one "Romance readers' handbook", which might or might not be significant coverage. Edison (talk) 18:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable. Simply being published isn't enough. Her books don't seem to have made an impact with no prominent reviews or awards for example. Having not a single source can't help either. Christopher Connor (talk) 23:18, 16 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.