Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A. Bates


 * 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. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste  (t, e &#124; c, l) 12:01, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

A. Bates

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Subject fails to meet notability criteria. No sources cited, and Google search turns up only sales links. Pages that link to subject's page appear to mainly be user pages and other unimportant pages.Terukiyo (talk) 16:46, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:51, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:51, 28 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. YA authors are often prolific, but serious reviews of their works can be hard to find. Bates seems to be no exception, but I was able to find some sources that rise to significant coverage of her and her work:
 * She's discussed several times in Paperback Crush: The Totally Radical History of '80s and '90s Teen Fiction by Gabrielle Moss (2018)
 * Party Line is reviewed in Science Fiction & Fantasy Book Review Annual (1990; pp 519-520)
 * Mother's Helper is the subject of a review in Publisher's Weekly
 * Mother's Helper appears to be the subject of an academic paper in the Journal of the Institute of Romance Studies v. 7 pp.316- (University of London), although I'm having trouble finding the full text of the paper
 * This ought to be sufficient for WP:NAUTHOR. pburka (talk) 21:22, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:32, 5 May 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  23:47, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Being prolific alone wouldn't meet any criteria for WP:NAUTHOR, so that's irrelevant. Disagree that two book reviews meet any of criteria 1-4. It's not difficult to pay for PW reviews (self-published books can even receive reviews for free); that the reviews are significant for book sales does not mean that every reviewed book is "significant or well-known".

Disagree that two citations meet the criterion for "widely cited by peers or successors". Also, do you have the title for the academic paper? Your link to the journal doesn't show a table of contents. Terukiyo (talk) 12:24, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I actually presented four citations,
 * Here's a fifth: Final Exam is reviewed in English Journal, Vol. 80, No. 3, (Mar 1991): 87.
 * And a sixth: The Dead Game is discussed in McCarron K. (2000) "Dead Rite: Adolescent Horror Fiction and Death." In: Avery G., Reynolds K. (eds) Representations of Childhood Death. Palgrave Macmillan
 * Regarding the JIRS paper, I can't find the title, but the Google snippet is intriguing: For the purposes of this discussion I have selected Mother's Helper (1991), by Auline Bates, as its peritextual features are particularly relevant here. The cover of the book is immediately striking, directly implicating the child in the denial...
 * As far as I know, Publishers Weekly publishes their paid reviews for self-published books in a separate "BookLife" section. Since her books aren't self-published, we should assume PW's review is independent.
 * Additionally, it appears that her books have been widely translated (at least into French and Finnish). While that's not explicitly considered by WP:NAUTHOR, I think it's evidence that her body of work is "significant or well-known".
 * Again, I assert that she passes WP:NAUTHOR. Additionally, several of her books are notable, so we could conceivably have brief entries for two or three of them, but I think it's more sensible to keep everything on the author's page. pburka (talk) 22:29, 14 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep per the sources found by pburka and pburka's reasoning, and per WP:AUTHOR due the significant critical attention of the works. Beccaynr (talk) 02:46, 16 May 2021 (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.