Talk:Alison Waley

Thanks
Thanks, for improving the article. It gives much better notability for Alison Waley now. AngusWOOF ( bark  •  sniff ) 18:25, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Any time, ! I'm just a ping away if you need me in the future. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:34, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , umm..... does she really seem to be independently notable? How'bout creating A Half of Two Lives: A Personal Memoir and invoke WP:NOPAGE?
 * Mentions in footnotes of books, 3 reviews of the same book (not too glowing, either) and over-usage of a single obituary does not give confidence. &#x222F; WBG converse 16:49, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I added sources to the article and I stand by them. You don't get a very large obit in the Times if you aren't important. She's got multiple reviews and not just for her memoir. Also, why are you contacting me about this? I added the references. I did not move the article out of draft space. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:23, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * This's sufficiently well-written to merit a main-spacing. And, given that, I don't see the point of contacting anyone else. &#x222F; WBG converse 17:33, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * then why did you contact me? Megalibrarygirl (talk) 02:07, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * What? Why shall I contact someone else? It was a good mainspace-move, so Jarekt can't be much faulted and that was the emphasis of my last reply. And, don't you agree that you are one of the major contributors of the article (and the most experienced of the lot to have edited this)? Or do you believe that article contributors shall not be contacted in this manner? &#x222F; WBG converse 05:23, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I already said I stand by what I added. And if you believe that was right in moving the article, I find your comments above to *only me* strange. Either it was right to move into Mainspace (where the criteria in AfC is that an article will not be likely to be deleted) or it doesn't. In addition,  has been editing Wikipedia as long as I have and was very involved in this. I just wondered why you only contacted ME. It felt rather pointed and strange. I accept your explanation in that you felt that I was the major contributor. However, I feel that I was part of a team here and I'm glad I had the chance to work on an interesting article. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 14:29, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I already said I stand by what I added. And if you believe that was right in moving the article, I find your comments above to *only me* strange. Either it was right to move into Mainspace (where the criteria in AfC is that an article will not be likely to be deleted) or it doesn't. In addition,  has been editing Wikipedia as long as I have and was very involved in this. I just wondered why you only contacted ME. It felt rather pointed and strange. I accept your explanation in that you felt that I was the major contributor. However, I feel that I was part of a team here and I'm glad I had the chance to work on an interesting article. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 14:29, 1 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I am not sure what is the controversy. Alison was (in my mind) clearly notable person: a published author still relevant a while after her prime, with plenty independent authority control records (see or wikidata identifiers), mentioned by numerous sources. Early draft was rallying heavily on sources like geni.com, but we managed to find alternative sources. Early draft was also disproportionately focusing on a single work by the author, but we managed to fill in other aspects of her life. I am grateful to Megalibrarygirl for helping with some of the sources and the expansion. As with most articles, it can be improved and more sources can be tracked down, but I thought it was in much better shape than most other stubs I have seen. So what is the issue being debated? And what is Megalibrarygirl "faulted" for? Jarekt (talk) 20:15, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Where was I faulting MLG for damn anything? I was asking about whether the part. book is the sole case of her notability and thus, whether she might be covered at a to-be article about the book. She disagrees which is perfectly fine.
 * FWIW, Wikidata identifiers or other authority control records are not tangentially relevant for notability. And neither are all published authors auto-notable. &#x222F; WBG converse 08:46, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * it made no sense to address the question to only me as if I was the arbiter of the entire article. That's my point. I wanted to understand why you singled me out. It felt strange and made no sense to me. When you want to gain consensus to move the article to another topic as you suggested, you really ought to include everyone involved in the creation of the article. Do you understand? And as to 's point about authority identifiers, they are indicators of likely notability and also avenues for looking for other leads for information (reviews of other works, etc). We all know they don't confer automatic notability. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:51, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , don't be patronizing and it's quite commonplace to ask a single editor (who has been involved in any article) for a second opinion about whether to float any broader proposal at all (and then waste others' time). If you had somewhat agreed or were borderline about the standalone notability of the subject; I would have progressed to some AfD or a merge disc. or the like. Now, I won't. &#x222F; WBG converse 15:56, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I won't engage with you any further. Feel free to have the last word. &#x222F; WBG converse 15:58, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry you won't engage any further, . I wasn't patronizing you; it really seemed like you weren't understanding. If you had clearly stated your intent in the beginning, as you finally did here before leaving the discussion, this whole situation may have been avoided. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:52, 2 March 2019 (UTC)