Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anne Brooke


 * 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 DELETE. postdlf (talk) 16:00, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Anne Brooke

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG, non-notable author. Me-123567-Me (talk) 04:41, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep She is a winner of the Royal Literary Fund Award and other awards. West Eddy (talk) 05:10, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete No real evidence of notability is yet offered. The Royal Literary Fund is a bursary for authors in bad straits, not an award based on literary merit.  The Harry Bowling Prize is very obscure and not very prestigious: it is awarded to unpublished work in a very narrow field, and is based on first chapter and synopsis not the actual quality of the finished novel (most winners are very obscure names).  I can't find any reviews of her work on Kirkus or Publishers Weekly, in major British newspapers, or EBSCO; however there may be other reliable sources with reviews, in which case I'll be willing to change my mind. --Colapeninsula (talk) 08:54, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete She does not pass WP:AUTHOR - her work is neither popular nor highly regarded. --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:19, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. (1) The nomination is a tautology. (2) Whether the awards are prestigious is an open question. Expert opinion would be appreciated. (3) There are plenty of sources online that have reviewed her books - see, , , and .  Whether those sources are reliable can be discussed calmly below. Bearian (talk) 19:10, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The Booklore review is a user-submitted reader review, and therefore doesn't count. The Alison Baverstock book only has a very brief mention that tells us nothing about Anne Brooke.  The other two sites are a bit better but I'm not sure either qualifies as a WP:RS; the Eurocrime review is apparently by a "journalist" but it's not clear whether the site meets the other requirement for a reliable source, while Three Dollar Bill seems to be a one-person operation.  I don't think it's quite enough for notability. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:11, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:05, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Colapeninsula, I have to agree with your additional arguments at least somewhat. Weak keep. Bearian (talk) 15:00, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete  Worldcat shows   only 3 books: Maloney's Law (2008) in English and  held by only 3 libraries,Thorn in the Flesh (2008). also in only  3 libraries, and A Strangers Tale,2007. held by one library. The other books not listed at all. I consider this extremely firm proof of lack of notability of an author.  I consider none of the sources reliable, and some of the publishers are vanity presses. Libraries buy fiction if there are reliable reviews or if patrons ask for them. When they don't it usually shows the absence of both factors.   (btw, there is another Anne Brook, a Welsh novelist writing in Welsh and English)  DGG ( talk ) 00:10, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   21:06, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  →TSU tp* 04:49, 31 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. I checked WP:AUTHOR again, and I do not see how she is notable according to this policy. My search did not provide me with anything new, except for her books being sold on Amazon and on bol.com, a major Dutch online store, but by itself it does not create notability.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:35, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable (enough).  Hazard-SJ  ✈   05:11, 3 June 2012 (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.