Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cendrine Wolf


 * 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. Nearly closed as 'no consensus' and this decision does not preclude a merge discussion but the consensus here as I see it is to keep. J04n(talk page) 23:13, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Cendrine Wolf

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Co-author of some books, but no significant coverage; WP:NOTABILITY not established - seems to be promotional, part of a collection of articles on Pushkin Press' authors by User:PushkinPress. She does have a German WP article, but I still don't see notability. See also Articles for deletion/Anne Plichota. Boleyn (talk) 18:56, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:51, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:51, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep http://www.guardian.co.uk/childrens-books-site/2011/nov/07/oksa-pollock-plichota-wolf-review In ictu oculi (talk) 17:06, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

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) 17:53, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment That her book has been reviewed in a national newspaper doesn't establish notability. How does she meet WP:AUTHOR? (The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.
 * She passes WP:AUTHOR #4 In ictu oculi (talk) 03:29, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: I'm finding quite a few sources, but pretty much just for the Oksa Pollock series. It looks like this is her sole claim to fame, so I'm leaning towards saying that this should redirect to that article. If I do vote that way, I think we should leave the history intact in case her other series becomes just as popular. If it does, there would be merit in having an article for her as well. I'm still doing work, though. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   04:21, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Oksa Pollock, but leave the history per my argument above. The series seems to be wildly popular in France and I've found enough to show notability for it. There just really isn't anything that focuses on Wolf herself as the author. Everything is about the series. I suggest leaving the history because if her new series becomes just as popular and gains sources, we could rationalize an entry for her and the other author due to them being famous for the two series. When/if that happens, we might want to look into writing an entry for the two of them together, as they work in a pair and their articles would pretty much read the same. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   05:01, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Still keep - Boleyn, I think we have to give some latitude for children/teen literature. The somewhat semi-professional way these 2 bios have been launched on en.wp is indeed a little annoying, and a tad WP:TOOSOON given that the second franchise Susan Hopper only hit Amazon.fr on 21 March 2013, 23 March 2013 author appearance at the http://www.librairie-kleber.com/media/nsl/brochure/pdf/6740_mars.pdf i.e. still doing the book signings, although there is some pre-pub stuff in the French press http://www.lalsace.fr/loisirs/2013/02/01/la-vie-des-livres. The problem is the moment the second franchise of books starts churning out we'll be in a two book-series articles and no author bios scenario. So right on the cusp of the second series coming out, redirecting the author bios is just creating hassle - technically justified hassle given WP:AUTHOR, but still a rather short-term Canute like solution. Unfortunately this is just reality on en.wp isn't it. Acres of sports bios and yet we're going to delete the two new names of French teen girls fiction because they haven't made the adult lit press. They may not do so. How do we explain that Jamal Mahjoub (evidently mega-notable) didn't have an en.wp bio until he published some crime potboilers under the pseudonym Parker Bilal. It is what it is. Keep and move on. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:38, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Question: I'd support an author article, but I'm thinking that maybe it'd be better to create an article for the two of them? The actual coverage of their personal lives is fairly light and my big issue is that we'd essentially have two identical articles because both would say the same thing. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   06:30, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That is a fair point. But there's already more info on each than on most sport BLPs. It's unfortunate that the same minimial snippets of bio info are the same again and again in the same 27 languages the books have been published in and getting newspaper reviews all round the world. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:57, 30 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete for failing WP:AUTHOR and WP:BOOK. Qworty (talk) 05:43, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Qworty, please can you clarify on that, given WP:BKCRIT item 1? In ictu oculi (talk) 13:57, 30 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep the author of multiple noted series of books.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:50, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Two for one

 * The almost duplicate article for Articles for deletion/Anne Plichota has been deleted despite passing WP:AUTHOR #4 "The person has created... a work... that has been the subject of ... multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." - I hope that means that we're taking up TokyoGirls' suggestion of a 2-for-1 bio. Despite the spammy way these bios started, the writing duo evidently do pass WP:AUTHOR #4 when French sources are allowed, as we do allow. Therefore this surviving Cendrine Wolf article should be moved to Anne Plichota and Cendrine Wolf. If that can't be done then Anne Plichota should be restored. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:27, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * If the two pages were userfied to you would you be willing to merge them into a decent non-spammy "two for one" article? J04n(talk page) 10:33, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * If all else fails and nobody else wants to do it, I'd be willing to try to come up with something myself. If we do create a combo user page, I'd still like to keep the individual page histories intact for each person so we can have something that can be un-merged if/when they gain more notability outside of one another. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   13:32, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 08:50, 6 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Admittedly it is difficult while they are joined at the hip like this. I support Tokyogirl79's suggestion of leaving the history intact. But to be honest it really seems a little pointless merging Wolf into Plichota. They're getting more notable by the day; the first book in the new Susan Hopper series has been featured in several French newspapers. They have passed WP:AUTHOR #4, getting more press coverage than serious grown up authors, and if it is true that there's a film deal coming there'll be material on that and new cats being added. Seems an awful lot of effort to de-article one half of a writing duo. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:46, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep per In ictu oculi. Listmeister (talk) 21:06, 12 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.