Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Priscilla Gilman

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. Kurykh (talk) 00:11, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Priscilla Gilman[edit]

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

Somewhat promotional article not based on reliable secondary sources. A Google News search for coverage of Gilman is complicated by the numerous false positives due to articles written by Gilman herself; the best I found was this piece of local news (it originally appeared "in the New York edition" of the NYT), plus this book review that provides quotes, but scant details about either Gilman or her work. I don't think that's enough to satisfy WP:NAUTHOR. Removing all content without reliable sources would turn the article into a stub of one or two sentences. Huon (talk) 12:22, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 16:16, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 16:16, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, although I don't feel strongly about it. This wedding announcement in the New York Times is another source. I agree that the Google News search yields a lot of hits....it really yields lots and lots of hits, which says something. --do ncr am 23:53, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As doncram said, she and her book have lots of coverage. Article needs sourcing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:45, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the source listed above is a local announcement anyone can ask and pay for, especially for localized, and she's not significantly held in libraries with a high of only a few, along with barely 2 in 1 library; nothing else better is available and none of this amounts to actual substance. SwisterTwister talk 07:51, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is emphatically not true that "anyone can pay and ask for" a wedding announcement in the New York Times.In days of yore, these announcements were restricted to the social register. In our slightly more democratic age, any couple can pitch the Times in what is now a highly selective process. The rich, famous, and well-connected are still selected, but so are up-and-comers form non-notable families (20-somethings with Rhodes scholarships or appellate court clerkships), and some people with particularly interesting backstories are also selected. We all need to try not to make assertions where we do not know the facts.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:47, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That said, the announcements are useful in an article because the Times fact checks them so carefully. But they are a slender reed on which to support notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:47, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Took a 2nd look at Gilman. Her first book get widespread attention, not only reviews, but excerpted published in major media (like Newsweek). She is a widely published literary critic, but also here: [1] is a long interview with her.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:47, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per E.M.Gregory (talk · contribs) above - certainly a notable enough author for a page. Garchy (talk) 15:07, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:50, 28 January 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.