Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carrie F. Shepherd


 * 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. The article's subject is found to not be notable. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 05:24, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Carrie F. Shepherd

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Seemingly non-notable author signed to a book company that does not have an article of its own. Apart from the one very minor award (from a seemingly non-notable organisation), I am not seeing anything much in the way of coverage that indicates notability. The sources here are mostly not RS. DanielRigal (talk) 23:06, 13 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal (talk) 23:11, 13 January 2016 (UTC)


 * As this is my first article, your experienced opinion on whether this article fits the guidelines on notability and living persons is more qualified than mine. As a new user, please tell me if I am participating in this discussion page correctly.  Could you also tell me what "RS" sources are?  Dbrown7 (talk) 23:29, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The normal format is for people to say whether they think the article should be kept, deleted or whatever and to give their reasons briefly. The points are bulleted (I have put a bullet on your comment above). Other relevant comments can be added too, so yours is fine. To answer your question, RS means Reliable Sources which is the policy on the sorts of sources we regard as best (most reliable) and worst. The other policy to look at is WP:AUTHOR (a small part of a larger policy) which tells you where the bar is set for an article about an author. The key point to that is that simply being a published author is not enough. It is quite normal for an author who has been published but not attracted much mainstream attention to not be notable enough for an article. Some such authors become more notable later. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:40, 13 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as per WP:TOOSOON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:27, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete for now at best as simply none of this is yet convincing enough including the listed sources (which would certainly be better). SwisterTwister   talk  07:22, 19 January 2016 (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.