Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carol Sklenicka


 * 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. RL0919 (talk) 20:53, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Carol Sklenicka

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Individual does not meet WP:AUTHOR notability criteria. The only substantive claim to notability seems to be positive reception to the biography of Raymond Carver, but that is not enough to meet the WP:AUTHOR tests. Mel ma nn  19:12, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.   Mel ma nn   19:12, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions.   Mel ma nn   19:12, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.   Mel ma nn   19:12, 27 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. The page needs a lot of editing to clean up the COI and promo aspects, but there are at least two notable works: the Carver biography and also the Alice Adams biography. Both received extensive and in-depth reviews (e.g. this review of the Adams book in the New York Times). Both books are sufficiently notable to support individual articles, but I'd prefer to keep them together in the author's page. See Sole authors of notable books for my reasoning. pburka (talk) 20:11, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * ... or move to Works of Carol Sklenicka or Carol Sklenicka bibliography and refactor appropriately, per discussion below. pburka (talk) 22:31, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:25, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 20:36, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Could you expand in regards to WP:AUTHOR criteria and how this article meets them? I struggle to see how even the most charitable reading of those criteria could support keeping the article. I do agree that articles on the books, individually, may stand a better chance of meeting notability, but this article (and discussion) is about the individual. It's not obvious to me that just because individual book is notable the author should WP:INHERIT the notability by mere transitive property. Surely, a notable author would receive coverage independent of any of their individual work.  Mel ma nn   21:22, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I linked to an essay explaining my reasoning. This page includes details about two or more notable books. Would you prefer that we split the article up into two or three stubs about each of the books and replicate a biography section in each of those? pburka (talk) 21:36, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I would prefer if we merged what is worthy of preserving in regards to these two books into the book subject's 'Reception/Influence/Cultural impact' section, and deleted the rest. I did read your essay, but I did not see any policy based arguments with which I could engage with. It appears to me that you're making a WP:IGNORE argument, which is in itself fair, but you seem to be making it for all 'less notable authors', not just this particular one, which in itself seems like a policy suggestion that might do better in WP:VPP.  Mel ma nn   21:53, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, as I note in the essay, it's consistent with WP:NAUTHOR#3, although I acknowledge it's a slightly radical interpretation. Do you agree that at least two of her books are individually notable per WP:NBOOK? Would you be more comfortable with my position if we renamed the page to Works of Carol Sklenicka? pburka (talk) 22:04, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The books do appear to meet WP:NBOOK criteria 1. If you propose move (or if you bold move) to Works of Carol Sklenicka (or functionally equivalent alternative), I will withdraw this nomination.  Mel ma nn   22:14, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Proposed above. Thank you for a productive and thought-provoking discussion. pburka (talk) 22:31, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Sklenicka appears to meet WP:AUTHOR#3 for Raymond Carver alone, so there appears to be no reason to move the article, due to the support available for this notability criteria - the book was also featured as one of the The 10 Best Books of 2009 by the New York Times, and the NYT printed an excerpt, in addition to the review by Stephen King published by the NYT, the reviews noted below, included in the article, and potentially available with additional research. There is also additional support for WP:BASIC/WP:GNG notability, although this does not appear necessary to support an article for her. Beccaynr (talk) 00:58, 28 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:BASIC/WP:GNG due to in-depth coverage of her and her career (e.g. The Oregonian, Press Democrat, SFGate) and WP:AUTHOR#3, as the author of well-known works that are the primary subject of multiple independent reviews, e.g. Abigail Adams (Book Marks, six reviews); Raymond Carver (e.g. Publisher's Weekly, SFGate, NPR, The Oregonian, The Irish Times, CS Monitor, Seattle Times etc). Beccaynr (talk) 00:37, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep and speedy close, do not retitle. The nomination is fundamentally misguided. It is based on the increasingly common, and disturbingly given credibility, heresy that something in Wikipedia policy dictates that creative people cannot "inherit" notability from their work. This nonsense is, of course, expressly contradicted by policy, guideline, and practice; as WP:INHERITED states, "the notability guidelines, for creative professions, books, films and music, do allow for inherited notability". The great majority of creative folks (and notable people in general) live unexceptional personal lives. Editors who expect that people must behave like Kardashians to merit individual articles don't understand what users come to an encyclopedia for. But we don't center our coverage on articles like Drumming of Charlie Watts, Comic strips of Charles Schulz, Baseball career of Sandy Koufax, or Scientific work of Wolfgang Pauli. The AFD process would be greatly improved if any NOMINATOR who cited NOTINHERITED without understanding it was topic banned for a month, length doubling with each subsequent offense. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006.  Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 05:07, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep: two books reviewed in many reliable sources: enough. I've added a couple more reviews of the Adams book, to support the "multiple independent reviews" for WP:AUTHOR#3. Pam  D  17:06, 28 August 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.