Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anne Plichota


 * 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   no consensus.  MBisanz  talk 21:45, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Anne Plichota

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Has written a series of books that appear non-notable. Not significant media coverage. WP:NOTABILITY not established - seems to be coi promotion. See also Articles for deletion/Cendrine Wolf. Boleyn (talk) 18:54, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:50, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:50, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. I was going to say redirect to the book series, but it seems that even the books are lacking in notability. Ducknish (talk) 20:52, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - http://www.guardian.co.uk/childrens-books-site/2011/nov/07/oksa-pollock-plichota-wolf-review (and similar reviews in French, German, Spanish) In ictu oculi (talk) 17:05, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

'The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. The person is a significant contributor to, a subject of, or used as an expert source by major news agencies or publications. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.' Boleyn (talk) 17:57, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Her book has reviews but I don't see how she meets WP:AUTHOR:
 * Redirect to Oksa Pollock. I've sourced the book series to where it shows notability, as it's gotten a great deal of coverage in multiple languages. However the issue here is that the author doesn't really have notability out of this main series. She and the other author have another series in the works and if that gets as much coverage as this one has, there would be merit in creating an entry for the two of them as a writing team at that point in time. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   05:13, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Still keep - or at the very least wait until this weeks Susan Hopper release has time to hit the shelves and garner press notices. No need to duplicate comment at Articles for deletion/Cendrine Wolf. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:58, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete for failing WP:AUTHOR and WP:BOOK. Qworty (talk) 05:44, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "The person has created... a work... that has been the subject of ... multiple independent periodical articles or reviews."
 * http://www.lepoint.fr/culture/2010-03-03/interview-les-ingredients-du-fantastique/249/0/429805 etc. etc. etc. etc.
 * Where does the guideline say "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" have to be in English for a French book? In ictu oculi (talk) 13:32, 30 March 2013 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 12:53, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge to Oksa Pollock. It's possible that she's notable but we don't have enough references yet: the Guardian review is by a child rather than a professional critic, and the other cited references (Ouest France, Le Point) are interviews, which don't qualify as reliable sources. There's the argument that she's notable simply for playing a large role in the creation of a widely reviewed book, but that doesn't guarantee her an article if there are no other sources. If she was sole creator, she would have a better case, or we could merge her book to her article, but as co-creator the best option is merging her to her co-creation. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:34, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep being the author of a work that has created "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" is an inclusion criteria, and this author fits this criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:28, 4 April 2013 (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.