Talk:Angelica Goodden

Notability template
Hi BoyTheKingCanDance - thank you for the review of the article. The article currently cites 11 sigcov independent reviews of the subject's books. These are over a sustained period of time and are from a variety of notable reliable sources - Kirkus Reviews, London Review of Books, French Studies, Literary Review, and so on. This should meet WP:Author#3, and should resolve your tag: Please help to demonstrate the notability of the topic by citing reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic and provide significant coverage of it beyond a mere trivial mention. I welcome your thoughts on removal of the template message. ResonantDistortion 07:06, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi my friend, thanks for sharing your view. Editing can be a subjective process, despite guidelines to inform our decision-making. I try to look at an author's page and see holistically whether any or all of the books have made the author sufficiently notable. For example, let's say an author has written ten books, but each book only achieved a single review anywhere. That would indicate that each book sank almost without trace. Yet a Wikipedia editor could assemble those ten reviews and say, see, this proves notability. So I sometimes err on the side of caution. But I'm never dogmatic and I'm not always right. If I got this one wrong, you can just remove the template. It doesn't have to be the same editor who added it who also removes it. Anyone can. And like I say, my judgment, although based on my sincere best efforts to be fair and accurate, isn't always perfect. I accept my human limits. I might also add that the criteria for establishing an academic's notability isn't exactly the same as for an author. So there's even more to try to balance. Very many thanks and my best wishes, BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 08:23, 11 June 2023 (UTC)