Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbara Dillon


 * 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. JohnCD (talk) 22:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Barbara Dillon

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

An unreferenced article. Practically no results on Google on her. Establishes no real notability and has only has IMDB and Amazon sources. — Cargoking   talk  20:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this author. Joe Chill (talk) 20:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * She's a children's literature version of a one hit wonder. Merge into A Mom for Christmas. Bearian (talk) 21:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Even if she is a one hit wonder, she is probably notable, as per DGG's research and links. Change to Keep. Bearian (talk) 22:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  —  Gongshow  Talk 21:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per Joe Chill, fails GNG and WP:CREATIVE. JBsupreme (talk) 23:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep She has written a number of novels, and according to WorldCat,   even though they were publlshed in the early 1980s, the library holdings are still 664, 558, 401, 365, 333, 325, 307, 303, 242, 181   There appear to be about  reviews of many of  her books--even apart from the one made into a movie  listed even just in Google News Archive. , , , , and some  academic articles mentioning them in Google scholar  ,  Google books shows reviews in Publishers Weekly and Kirkus:    . She's included in dozens reference work and anthologies


 * On what basis then can she be called an one-hit wonder? --the book made into a movie isn't even among her most widely held in libraries--it's the one with the 365 holdings. On what basis can it be said there are no references to her? "Practically no results in Google" -- welll known as one of the non-arguments--and particular absurd consider the results in GS and GB & GN.    DGG ( talk ) 04:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, but there are no significant primary sources present. — Cargoking   talk  18:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep The sources shown by DGG clearly indicate notability. Edward321 (talk) 03:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: It is hard to argue with DGG - Ret.Prof (talk) 04:07, 30 January 2010 (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.