Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christina Hollis


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:22, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Christina Hollis

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

The subject of this article does not appear to meet the notability guidelines at WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG. I was unable to find any significant coverage in reliable sources unrelated to the subject. VQuakr (talk) 04:06, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 13:19, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Fails WP:BK, WP:AUTHOR, and WP:BIO. Qworty (talk) 19:03, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. As the author of the article I'm obviously biased, but I wanted to highlight the fact that the subject of the article has had seventeen books covering two separate (although related) genres published by a well-known, international publishing house and has sold over a million copies of them. Does that not qualify as 'notable'? Mgswiki (talk) 11:49, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 13:14, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Unfortunately I don't see evidence that she meets notability requirements; neither romance nor countryside matters are genres of books widely discussed in the media. She does get lots of coverage at RT Book Reviews which is probably the only commercial magazine that reviews large amounts of romantic fiction.  And there are lots of reviews on blogs.  But there's very little coverage on the other main online reviews sites (Publishers Weekly, Library Journal, Kirkus).  Nothing on Google News.  I tried a quick search for pseudonym Polly Forrester but nothing there either. If there was evidence of bestselling status or more reviews, that would help establish notability, but being prolific isn't itself enough. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:01, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment Many of the subject's books are also reviewed on 'category romance' readers' site CataRomance . She has appeared in the USA Today Bestsellers list, but I'm having trouble locating the specific web page and so I can't put up a link to that yet. If the CataRomance reviews are not considered sufficiently independent, and/or if I can't locate the USA Today page, I will myself recommend that the article is taken down until I can make it more cast-iron. Mgswiki (talk) 09:30, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Readers' reviews are generally not considered to be reliable sources, rejected for the same reason as blogs, wiki entries, user-contributed sites like IMDb, and personal web-pages - a lack of editorial oversight, fact-checking, or professional expertise from the writer. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:57, 17 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Reluctant Delete As the author of the article I'm obviously not keen on the idea of abandoning it, but as a Wikipedia novice I will respect the opinions and judgement of more experienced editors. Please withdraw this article (I won't do it myself in case I break something) until I can locate more acceptable references to support it. Note that the article also has a redirect to it from Polly Forrester, which presumably should also be withdrawn. Mgswiki (talk) 20:30, 17 September 2012 (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.