Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deb Baker


 * 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:52, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Deb Baker

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Author has two books that have appeared in Booklist and Kirkus, but I don't find significant reviews. (Note that Capital Times is a local paper (Madison, WI). I don't have access to those, but local-only publications are low on the notability support scale.) Under the name Hannah Reed she has books published by Berkley Publishing, which is a Penguin imprint. I don't find any reviews for these books. (Although the references say 'subscription required' you can search Booklist without a subscription.) The others are self-published, some with listed publisher D.B. Publishing, LLC which is clearly herself. The remainder (that I have checked) are on Amazon with publisher CreateSpace. The source for the award is not an RS (it's someone's personal site) and Authorlink is not, AFAIK, a major literary award. This fails wp:NAUTHOR, because it does not meet "(c) has won significant critical attention". LaMona (talk) 19:55, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  /wiae   /tlk  20:38, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions.  /wiae   /tlk  20:38, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:12, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep I fixed this article up quite a bit. 1) She has an author bio in a Gale published book 2) she has 2 Kirkus reviews and reviews in Booklist and Library Journal and 3) Local sources don't take away from notability. She is notable in her area. Author passes GNG, she doesn't need to pass anything else. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:54, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The author bio can be used for information, but I don't see how that supports notability - that reference work does not appear to be selective, so it's a directory of all authors, probably gathered from publisher information. (It has 145K entries.) And reviews in Kirkus and Booklist are hardly "(c) has won significant critical attention" - they are review publications that review thousands of books per year, each book getting about 300 words. Just to be sure that we're all on the same page, here are the criteria for notability for creative professionals, including authors:
 * The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.
 * 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. In addition, such work must have 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.
 * I think that all we can say about this person is that she has written books. A lot of people have written books. If we put every author who is included in Kirkus and Booklist in Wikipedia it would be close to the size of WorldCat (with over 200 million titles). LaMona (talk) 19:01, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Right, that's for authors in case there is no information to show GNG. If she passes GNG, that's all we need to worry about. She does, which is why I propose keep. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:44, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Can you say what sources you see as meeting GNG? LaMona (talk) 22:09, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Pretty much what I added. She has a bio in a Gale publication and the news articles are entirely about her. I know you had some questions about the notability of local coverage, but Wiki does not downgrade local news as being "non notable" just because it's local. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:11, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment, 7 of her books appear on WorldCat here, (i know the figures are not accurate, but as an indication?) each in about 200 to 300 libraries, although they are not showing up in 1000s of libraries, neither are they only in a handful. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:05, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment, WP:NAUTHOR does not preclude "trade reviews", only that the reviews be independent of the subject and from reliable sources, so although some editors appear to be uncomfortable with kirkus, booklist and others, they can be used for notability. ps. if wiki can have (in theory:)) millions of articles on sportspeople ("An athlete is presumed to be notable if the person has actively participated in a major amateur or professional competition or won a significant honor") why can't it also have millions of articles on authors and books as long as they are notable? so many articles, so little time Coolabahapple (talk) 15:25, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Coolabahapple, I think that might be fine but the policies don't appear to me to go in that direction. I've been in discussions before about the trade reviews and our need to clarify their weight in terms of notability. We could indeed decide that anyone who has published with a major publisher (=participated in ...etc.) and has a trade review is considered notable. Then we need to get clear about the books themselves -- when does it make sense to have an article for a book? I have to say that as a librarian, and one who has thought a lot about authors and books, I really dislike separating the book from the author except in those cases where the book has become so well known (Don Quixote, War and Peace, etc.) that it has a cultural meaning of its own. Many authors today who are writing fiction or self-help or "how to make money" books are producing serviceable texts but no Moby Dick's among them. Articles for books are too often promotional, especially books that are currently in print. Interestingly, we have less of a tendency to create articles for technical books (O'Reilly et al) and their authors, and yet many of those are better written than their non-technical counterparts. We also treat popular writing and academic writing quite differently in terms of notability. For academic writing, we focus on the author and use wp:academic; for popular writing there is a tendency to focus on the book as "product", to look at sales or library figures, and we pay attention to Booklist and Kirkus. Well, as you can see, there's a whole essay to be done about this. But right now, authors who are not academics come under wp:CREATIVE. LaMona (talk) 17:19, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * , we don't need to use WP:CREATIVE if the article passes GNG. You're making things harder than they need to be. I appreciate your perspective (as a librarian myself), but I think you're overthinking things here. GNG is shown when there are multiple reliable sources where the subject is the main thrust of the article. We can apply GNG to anything: authors, books, whatever you want to write about. All we have to show is that there are enough sources to indicate that the subject is notable. WP:CREATIVE needs to be invoked only when the subject is probably notable, but enough reliable sources are unavailable to show GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:48, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't interpret GNG to mean "any two articles in any newspapers about someone" -- I think that's too low of a barrier. Also, GNG speaks of multiple sources, and so the three Capital Times actually are a single source. ("Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability.") In addition, note that the byline is the same for all three articles. GNG also says ""Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included." Being one of 147,000 in a biographical dictionary is not notable. I've already shown that Writer'sInfo is not a reliable source, it's a personal web site. Reviews in Kirkus and Booklist are, like Allmusic, sources of information but not discriminatory enough to establish notability. So, no, I don't think this meets GNG. LaMona (talk) 01:09, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Each article is a source. Kirkus and Booklist are good sources. I use them all the time to select materials for my library. Your bar is too high. And yes, being part of a biographical dictionary is notable, otherwise everyone would have an entry. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 04:40, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment, WP:GNG requires significant coverage which "addresses the topic directly and in detail", so it could be argued that the book reviews do not do this regarding the author, thats when WP:AUTHOR (or creative), can be used "3.The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.", though i would like to see a couple more. Agree that the local newspaper articles can be used for notability, although i would be happpier if there was a state or national newspaper article about the subject. This is why i am on the fence with this afd and i have neither stated keep or delete. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:32, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk  19:52, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - her works are widely published and widely available in libraries. Bearian (talk) 17:57, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep, seems to be suffciently covered in the references listed. --Reinoutr (talk) 11:23, 19 March 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.