Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dena Hankins


 * 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 (NAC) On the balance, the arguments that this author is notable due to the reviews of her books are convincing; in particular, the clause of WP:AUTHOR which states "The person's work (or works) [...] has won significant critical attention." Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:43, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Dena Hankins

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Couldn't find a single reliable source about her in either print or online media, including no notable reviews of her books. Fails both WP:AUTHOR and most importantly WP:GNG. FoCuS contribs ;  talk to me!  19:32, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  Human 3015   TALK    19:38, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  Human 3015   TALK    19:38, 17 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - Books and News found some links but no better notability and improvement yet. SwisterTwister   talk  05:51, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment, Publishers Weekly reviews are deemed notable/reliable, here are two of them on her books: on Blue Water Dreams- "Unnecessary angst and frustratingly poor communication between principal characters mar Hankins’s otherwise exciting debut... This debut shows promise; if only Hankins had given her fascinating characters more opportunities to take pleasure in each other’s company.", which was also long-listed for Lambda Literary Awards for transgender fiction, and  on Heart of the Lilikoi - "In constructing artificial-sounding dialogues about Hawaiian independence, green technology, and nonbinary gender, Hankins borders on the preachy, but the core romantic story is strong and satisfying.", note, i am not saying these make Hankins notable (thus no 'keep' by me), just that there are notable review of her books. oh, i just found another notable review, this time from the American Library Association’s Gay Lesbian Bisexual Transgender Round Table - "It is refreshing to read a love story where there is no jealous triangle ...  It may appeal to romance readers who are willing to try something a little different. It may also find a readership among trans men for the ways it affirms their sexuality and desirability." so it now getting very close to a keep. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:45, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * What policy states Publishers Weekly reviews are deemed significant enough to fulfill WP:AUTHOR? Or American Library Association’s Gay Lesbian Bisexual Transgender Round Table reviews? Also note Blue Water Dreams DID NOT win the Lambda award, and in any case that would be a case for an article on the book, not the author. Best, FoCuS contribs ;  talk to me!  23:22, 22 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep She's been reviewed in Publisher's weekly and ALA, as points out. I can't believe this article was nominated at all! For those who can't be bothered to do WP:BEFORE, I'm adding the relevant links to her article. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:56, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Not her, one of her books. And not the ALA, rather the American Library Association’s Gay Lesbian Bisexual Transgender Round Table. Per above, what notability guideline states PW and ALAGLBTRT (a mouthful, yes!) satisfy criteria #4 of WP:AUTHOR? By the way, it states "significant critical attention" - which I (and most other editors) take it to mean more than 1 marginal review {note one novel was reviewed by PW and the other by ALAGLBTRT}. FoCuS contribs ;  talk to me!  20:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * who has said criterion 4? Criterion 3. - "such work must have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." PW is independent of the subject and has reviewed the books, ditto alaglbtrt.Coolabahapple (talk) 00:29, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Emphasis on multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. FoCuS contribs ;  talk to me!  12:12, 25 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep per Megalibrarygirl.--Ipigott (talk) 11:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - while it's nice to be aware of WP:BEFORE, it's also nice to be aware that appropriate guideline is WP:NAUTHOR, not WP:NBOOK, which is the argument being used by those !voting keep. Not certain either of the books passes the latter, but the author certainly does not meet ANY of the 4 criteria of the former. Searches show this author clearly does not meet WP:GNG.  Onel 5969  TT me 22:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Exactly, as I've stated repeatedly above. FoCuS contribs ;  talk to me!  12:12, 25 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. Notable writer of lesbian fiction, with book reviews, interviews and mentions in several independent sources. Notable does not mean mainstream. Martinogk (talk) 09:03, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment, i would like to clarify and emphasise that i have not recommended keep on this afd, rather that reviews from PW and ALAGLBTRT are okay to be used towards notability, not that the reviews make the subject notable as there are not enough. i suggest more is required.Coolabahapple (talk) 16:59, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per Megalibrarygirl--DThomsen8 (talk) 20:42, 27 November 2015 (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.