Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carolyn Banks


 * 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. There is clear consensus that this topic is notable. (non-admin closure) MrClog (talk) 12:48, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Carolyn Banks

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Reads largely like a resume ever since its creation in 2008. WP:BEFORE turns up little to nothing. I am concerned that this does not satisfy GNG, WP:AUTHOR, or any other relevant notability guideline. The SandDoctor Talk 17:54, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ~  Amory  (u • t • c) 17:55, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ~  Amory  (u • t • c) 17:55, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ~  Amory  (u • t • c) 17:55, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:10, 28 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep the Article. I think the only things that need is reliable citation and more expanding.Forest90 (talk) 23:51, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment There are many reviews of her writing in newspapers of the time, so it is likely that she does meet WP:AUTHOR. I have removed the IMDB and Amazon 'references', and I am adding reviews and articles about her work as references. I can then attempt to edit the text based on the info in the references. RebeccaGreen (talk) 06:27, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep as per above. Needs better citation, but should be fine with a little attention. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 12:02, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:GNG - needs an ambitious editor. WP:NOTCLEANUP.  Lubbad85   (☎) 19:18, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. Meets both WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. WP:NOTCLEANUP and WP:SNOWBALL also apply. gidonb (talk) 01:20, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - Passes WP:GNG. --  Dane talk  02:14, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Kudos to Rebecca Green for WP:HEYMANN sourcing added to the page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:40, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I wasn't going to comment, but here I am. First, a clerical note of sorts: I have, with the help of, fixed the Newspapers.com references so that they are no longer paywalled and clearly state that they are via Newspapers.com. This was done per Newspapers.com. Cameron11598 assisted with providing the snippet URLs as I do not have access to the website. He has had no involvement with the below analysis (aside from basically allowing me access to review the references as the majority were paywalled). -- The SandDoctor Talk 19:05, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Now my analysis: The majority of her coverage appears to come from The Bastrop Advertiser - a weekly newspaper for Bastrop County - and Austin American-Statesman, which is the major daily newspaper for Austin, TX. As far as I can tell, she does not satisfy WP:AUTHOR criterion #1 ("The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.") based on sourcing present/below analysis. She does not satisfy WP:AUTHOR criterion #2 ("The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique.") as she has not originated a significant new concept/theory/technique. Nor does she really satisfy criterion #3 as she has not "created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work", nor has such work "been the primary subject of an independent and notable work." Most of the reviews below are fairly trivial in nature and mostly from repeat publications, therefore bringing the "or" clause of "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" at least somewhat into question. Moving onto the General Notability Guideline / WP:BASIC, she has not had significant coverage in "multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other" about herself. She merely has (mostly) short reviews not really talking about herself. By the numbers, Austin American-Statesman has written about her books 5 times, with one being an interview and all being fairly short; the Chicago Tribune has written about a book of her's for two sentences expressing how much he disliked the book/not covering her; Santa Cruz Sentinel was less harsh than the Chicago Tribune, totaling 7 sentences but never really talking about her or establishing notability; the The Star Tribune liked The Dark Room, giving it 5 short paragraphs (4 plot, 1 praising her); The Los Angeles Times reviewed 2 of her books. They arguably gave the second most substantive coverage, but again never really discussing her and mostly just plot summary; The Indianapolis News covered a book once calling it "suspenseful", mostly plot summary; The South Bend Tribune compared her book to another without any real review, short plot summary, only mentions her in subtitle; The San Francisco Examiner gave 1 review, which is by far the longest of them all.

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Carolyn Banks nor "Idyll" are supported by the first reference.
 * [I cannot comment on reference 2 at this time as I do not have access to the second page]
 * Ref #3 is just a website link . It should probably be removed.
 * Ref #4 does indeed verify that Amber Quill Press republished the books, but is largely an interview with The Bastrop Advertiser. Interviews do not add to notability.
 * Ref #5 indeed verifies that she founded a non-notable media arts organization
 * Ref #6 is IMDb which, from a notability standpoint doesn't do much and the film itself doesn't appear notable based on the non-paywall searches that I can do
 * Ref #7 is a deadlink and Wayback did not have a snapshot that I could find (I went from the last 2010 snapshot through til the last 2011 snapshot, 17 Nov 2011)
 * Ref #8 Two sentence review of the novel Mr. Right in the Chicago Tribune in which the reviewer had "little to say" about the book, considering it "lacking"
 * Ref #9 is a longer review this time of Mr. Right (in the Austin American-Statesman)
 * Ref #10 is a medium-short review in Santa Cruz Sentinel (An aside: critics don't like this book much, do they?)
 * Ref #11 is a plot summary/minor (in article content, nothing further) review of The Dark Room in The Star Tribune
 * Ref #12 is a review in the The Los Angeles Times of The Girls on the Row, but again says nothing about her
 * Ref #13 is a review in The Indianapolis News of Patchwork.
 * Ref #14 is a comparison between her book (Patchwork) and another in The South Bend Tribune
 * Ref #15 is again a review in the The Los Angeles Times (Patchwork). Appears she is becoming a better author at this point.
 * Ref #16 is another review of Patchwork, this time in The Orlando Sentinel
 * Ref #17 is a review of Groomed for Death in the Austin American-Statesman.
 * Ref #18 is a review of The Turtle's Voice in the Austin American-Statesman. It describes her as a "local writer who has made her mark with a mystery series..."
 * Ref #19 is a short review of A Horse to Die For in the Austin American-Statesman.
 * Ref #20 is a review of Tart Tales: Elegant Erotic Stories in The San Francisco Examiner. This is by far the most substantive coverage of any review above, but still mentions little about her.
 * Ref #21 is mostly an interview with herself and another writer in Austin American-Statesman.
 * Hopefully this is of use to some. -- The SandDoctor Talk 19:05, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Reviews do not need to say a lot about the author. As far as meeting WP:AUTHOR #3, I don't suppose that you or the person who helped you "fix" the references (not very successfully as they didn't get both pages of Ref #2) bothered to look for more? And how does 9 newspapers reviewing her works, including several major papers, not meet WP:AUTHOR #3? RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:55, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I have just added another 10 reviews as references. There are more (as I said in my first comment, there are many). Perhaps The SandDoctor 's friend can also clip these (I am sorry that I am currently unable to). As I also said above, I can attempt to add information and quotes from the reviews to the article. gidonb has done an excellent job of giving more shape to it. I often wish that those who put a lot of effort into arguing for deletion would put that effort into improving articles, instead. Funnily enough, I am also trying to write new articles, not just rescue those that come to AfD. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:15, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Scott Burley (talk) 03:01, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - evidence presented here shows the subject is notable enough to warrant their own article. Kirbanzo (userpage - talk - contribs) 15:24, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep based on number of reviews meaning that she meets WP:AUTHOR. Tacyarg (talk) 16:07, 6 May 2019 (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.