Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tara Westover

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. I was not aware of how extensive the coverage is. I thank Hodgdon's secret garden for doing what I should have done . An argument can be made that the book is better known than she is, and the article should be about the book. But In this case the book is autobiographical, so I think it would better be for the person DGG ( talk ) 22:13, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tara Westover[edit]

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

One memoir, no matter how well received, does not make a notable author. No evidence of  of scholarly publications to meet WP:PROF.  DGG ( talk ) 06:32, 19 March 2018 (UTC)  DGG ( talk ) 06:32, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing DGG ( talk ) 22:11, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable.Acnetj (talk) 07:11, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which guideline do you cite? In that her work is widely cited/made note of not only by literary critics but also by observers of ultra-traditional rearing with concern roles of women[1] and of mountainous back-country religious life,^{NYT review} indeed this writer is the very epitome of notable.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 08:56, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia goes by its own criteria not willynilliness:
Wp:N: "A topic is presumed to merit an article if (1) It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline [e.g., wp:PROF, etc.] listed in the box on the right." [...] "On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article. For people, the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice"^{"Notable". Encarta. Archived from the original by Internet Archive.} or "note"^{American Heritage Dictionary definition Retrieved 17 January 2015} – that is, "remarkable" or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life. "Notable" in the sense of being "famous" or "popular" – although not irrelevant – is secondary."
Wp:Basic: "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published ^{What constitutes a "published work" is deliberately broad.} secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,^{Sources that are pure derivatives of an original source can be used as references, but do not contribute toward establishing the notability of a subject."}
A ton of secondary sources specifically about this author's upbringing, young-adult academic acomplishments, ravingly reviewed book on the list of #1 NYT Best Sellers for non-fic 2018. "The New York Times Non-Fiction Best Sellers of 2018"--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 09:28, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (article creator). Westover's is young, got her PhD, and wrote a memoir. The thing is, as the simplest WP:BEFORE or a glance at the article wold show, the memoir is a hot bestseller that has produced copious coverage of her life (profiles and interviews in leading media in Britain and America,) far more than enough to pass WP:BASIC and the book would fly past WP:NBOOK which would carry her past WP:AUTHOR. I decided to start a bio page instead of a page on the author (as I would usually do with a notable book by a first-time author) because the book is a memoir, which made it seem to work best as a section on a bio page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:08, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Changed vote to Abstain - The article has been changed since the last time I read it that improved notability, so I am giving this a chance. Acnetj (talk) 10:21, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:01, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:01, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:NAUTHOR, as having "created a well known work" ie. Education in around 700 libraries thruout the world, and it has "been the primary subject ... of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.", enough already in the article and just looking at the 1st page of a gsearch lists more from notable and independent sources - "Educated : a memoir tara westover book reviews" Coolabahapple (talk) 14:31, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, media coverage clearly meets WP:GNG. Audiovideodiscoo (talk) 19:09, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. 22:09, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

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.