Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dawn Prince-Hughes


 * 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. Joyous! | Talk 02:57, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Dawn Prince-Hughes

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. The article only cites three sources, with a local news article being the only secondary source. All other sources are primary (her own writing, an interview), tertiary (encyclopedia.com) or not independent of her (Western Washington University, where she was employed). Baronet13 (talk) 23:41, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women,  and Illinois. Shellwood (talk) 23:50, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete Other than a few blogs that don't meet WP:RS standards, there is no WP:SIGCOV Justwatchmee (talk) 01:45, 26 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep. Clear WP:NAUTHOR pass, with additional WP:SIGCOV. Her memoir, Songs of the Gorilla Nation, was extremely widely reviewed, and has been the subject of scholarly work. Her other books have also received reviews and scholarly attention. I've added 6 reviews, a scholarly article, and a feature (the Chronicle article) to the footnotes. There will be more - this all came from a single database, and I didn't check google scholar or any newspaper-specific databases. -- asilvering (talk) 04:07, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. As per @Asilvering CT55555 (talk) 04:38, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment. These sources are about the book, not Dawn Prince-Hughes herself (the subject of the article) and contain little or no substantive information about Prince-Hughes that could be used in this article, which is probably why you cited five sources just to say she wrote a book and four sources to say she wrote another book. The additional sources did nothing to improve the article; it still has an entire section that doesn't cite any sources. It's impossible to write a good encyclopedia article relying almost exclusively on books reviews for source material. There is still no evidence of significant coverage of Prince-Hughes herself (the subject of the article) in secondary sources. Still fails WP:GNG. Baronet13 (talk) 08:29, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * What do you expect sources for an author to be about? Her favourite colour or her cat's name? Sources for footballers are about football and sources for politicians are about politics, so sources for authors are about books. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:45, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I would expect better sources than a small number of book reviews (ten reviews for the seven books she wrote). Almost every published book is reviewed, so just having a book reviewed is insufficient to establish notability. Baronet13 (talk) 19:23, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * That's not the case - see WP:NAUTHOR. It is extremely standard for AfD discussions about authors to close as keep on the basis of multiple notable books; notability of books is commonly decided based on the depth and number of major media or academic reviews. -- asilvering (talk) 19:35, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I should also add that I didn't cite five sources just to say she wrote a book and four sources to say she wrote another book. I put those footnotes on those sentences because that is the most logical place to place those sources. The article could be expanded with the information in those reviews, and now it is easier for another editor to do that. I haven't read any of her books myself and don't have any desire to expand her article, so that's as far as I'll go here, but I have nonetheless left the article in a better state than I found it. If you don't wish to expand it either, that's fine; so long as the subject is notable and there isn't anything outright false in the article, we can leave it as it stands. -- asilvering (talk) 19:41, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Almost every published book is reviewed. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:40, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Common knowledge. Baronet13 (talk) 02:46, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Your knowledge appears to be false, or maybe more charitably based on sampling bias: the books you have heard of are more likely to be the ones that have been reviewed. But I have a long list of many books that I would like to create Wikipedia articles about but have not because I have been unable to find enough reviews. For many of these I have no reviews at all. For that matter we have five books in the nominated article for which we do not yet list any reviews. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:02, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * My knowledge is that I know several people who have written books that have been published, but no review has been published. This knowledge does not seem to be as common as you think. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:53, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - per WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG/WP:BASIC, e.g. One day, a gorilla touched her soul (Seattle PI, 2004), The Zoo Story (New York Times, 2004), Song of the Gorilla Nation Kirkus, 2004) (both the NYT and Kirkus reviews note the 2004 book is a memoir, and the Publisher's Weekly review also notes this plus a tour and advocacy related to the book), Inspiring stories of people on the autism spectrum (CBS News, 2016); there are also interviews on BBC and NPR that while mostly primary, may be helpful to further develop the article, and there is an abstract available on GScholar for a 2011 Disability Studies Quarterly article that "examine[s] two technical and professional writers in particular—Temple Grandin and Dawn Prince Hughes—showing how each invents a professional ethos that resists stereotypes about autism and what it means to be an "ideal" professional communicator." The article can be further developed with available sources, and as outlined in WP:NAUTHOR, the multiple reviews of her collective body of work are secondary support for her notability, not simply verification that she wrote books, similar to other notable author articles. Beccaynr (talk) 19:05, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all your work on this! -- asilvering (talk) 20:53, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you, - author articles are some of my favorites to work on, and after you found so many great sources, this became an ooh! squirrel! opportunity for me. Cheers, Beccaynr (talk) 21:13, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep In addition to the sources identified above establishing clear WP:NAUTHOR notability, there's this profile:  . It's a local paper, so less weight for notability purposes than some of the above sources, but can be used as an additional source for biographical details. Jfire (talk) 19:22, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:AUTHOR and the multiple reviews of multiple books identified in the article. In-depth coverage of an author's works should be sufficient to build an article centered on those works. In this case we also have a significant amount of separate biographical coverage but that is not necessary for AUTHOR notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:58, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep for meeting the relevant standard. The idea that reviews of an author's work somehow don't contribute to the author being noteworthy floats around from time to time, and it never makes sense. We don't need a lavish profile with the subject's favorite beef stroganoff recipe and the roles they had in all the school plays. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 22:23, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep Just adding that since the AfD creation, the sources now clearly include multiple independent and reliable secondary sources. Initial concerns are resolved. &mdash;siro&chi;o 09:25, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:HEY after good work done by . Bearian (talk) 20:09, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:HEY and passes WP:AUTHOR.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:16, 4 March 2023 (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.