Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diane Hoh


 * 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:05, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Diane Hoh

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Only reference is an extremely minor mention of one of her books. Article also has little content apart from an unreferenced quote. Does not meet WP:GNG. Pretty much a BLP with no sources; I do not believe that a trivial mention should really count as a "source". Cyan Gardevoir (used EDIT!) 00:38, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete No claim is made about why the author is notable. FurrySings (talk) 03:09, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:39, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - it seems to have been edited extensively recently, I have not looked at the old versions. Anyway, the article now clearly has multiple reliably-sourced third-party coverage of the author's work. JoshuSasori (talk) 23:34, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Notability for authors is not dependent upon the number of titles published, but on the criteria detailed at WP:AUTHOR and WP:BK, which she fails.  Qworty (talk) 04:04, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The criteria at WP:AUTHOR: The person has created ... a significant or well-known work ... that has been the subject ... of multiple independent ... reviews - the article seems to show that she meets this because there is a list of several reviews at the bottom. JoshuSasori (talk) 04:07, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Reviews aren't enough. Millions of books are reviewed.  Where are the feature stories about her?  Qworty (talk) 08:22, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I've provided you a quote from WP:AUTHOR, one of the wiki-documents you used to argue for deletion, which actually says that reviews are enough. So I assume that you are stating a personal opinion about what articles should or should not be deleted, rather than discussing from the point of view of Wikipedia policies. JoshuSasori (talk) 08:44, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Read what you are quoting. The reviews have to be of a significant work, not an insignificant one.  More damningly, only one of the proffered "reviews" is a stand-alone article of one of her books.  Most of the other "reviews" are only one-line mentions or entries in lists.  Qworty (talk) 18:49, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Review of the "reviews". The first source is not a review at all, but just a meaningless list of authors .  It is absurd to think that this satisfies WP:AUTHOR.  The second source is not a review at all, but just a pull-quote from an article that is not about Diane Hoh . It is absurd to think that this satisfies WP:AUTHOR.  The third source is not a review at all, just two words in the index of a book .   It is absurd to think that this satisfies WP:AUTHOR. The fourth source was not a review at all, but an error message when I tried to access it .  It is absurd to think that this satisfies WP:AUTHOR.   The fifth source is not a review at all, but an abstract that says nothing at all about Diane Hoh .  It is absurd to think that this satisfies WP:AUTHOR.  The sixth source is just another abstract that doesn't mention her . It is absurd to think that this satisfies WP:AUTHOR.  The seventh source is an abstract that mentions her only briefly .  It is absurd to think that this satisfies WP:AUTHOR. Qworty (talk) 20:24, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, so even if Diane Hoh's work is, for example, quoted at length in a New York Times article on horror fiction for young adults, it doesn't count? I'm not so sure that everyone but you is being absurd. Also, by the way, please don't rely on Google Book search, it is horribly unreliable, as I found out to my cost in one of these discussions before. JoshuSasori (talk) 01:40, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Here's my two cents on the reviews. I haven't officially made a decision yet because everything I've found is a little on the light side. It's enough to where I'm leaning towards "keep" but not enough to where I'd say it's overwhelmingly so. I'm stuck between saying that we should keep the article and saying that she should redirect to Point Horror, as most of her books were released under that publisher and she was one of their major contributors.
 * First off, This book is a textbook written the director of the National Centre for Research in Children's Literature at Newcastle University and a lecturer at the University of Surrey Roehampton. It goes into depth about children and young adult literature and is more than "a meaningless list of authors".
 * This isn't exactly about Hoh by herself but she is quoted extensively in it as an example of teen lit for the time period in relation to the horror craze of the 90s. It's not like it's a list of every author that published teen horror during the 90s, just the most visible and influential ones.
 * This is a very well received book that goes over various teen series. It's not some fly by night book and was edited by the founder of VOYA. It's used extensively as a resource in various other books and journals, which is part of the reason I see it as a source that would show notability. You can't entirely rely on the views given by Google Books, as it only gives you a brief glimpse of the book. The entry for this takes up two pages, so it's more than just two words.
 * This brings up a review of the book in the St. Petersburg Times.
 * This one is brief, but it is a review by a reliable source.
 * Another brief one, but she is mentioned as an example of horror for the time period.
 * This is a review by the Hamilton Spectator of one of Hoh's books.
 * Even if we were to ignore five and six, that still leaves us with five sources that go over her work. It's less than what I'd like, but you've got to remember that much of her work was done pre-Internet and it's taking a very long time to find sources because of this. The sources on the article aren't perfect, but they are more pertinent than you are giving them credit for.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:11, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * My college has a copy of Serious about Series and I've taken the liberty of typing up parts of the sections on both of Hoh's series, Med Center and Nightmare Hall. (User:Tokyogirl79/sandbox) I just wanted to illustrate that this is more than just a few words or a listing of books. There's far more to the book as a whole, which is why it's used so often as a reference, but it's not some indiscriminate collection of authors and series. The work is often cited as one of the first books to really show YA as a separate genre from children's fiction and not just something that's lumped in with everything as a whole. It's a rather great desk reference as a whole, although of course it is rather dated by today's standards since it was released back in 1998, but it does list the most popular series of the time period and gives a rather in-depth look at each.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 12:52, 24 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, — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 07:30, 29 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep contrary to what Qworty says, reviews are enough. In fact, they're the almost universal sources of which we base notability of authors--provided they're non-local, and more than mere mentions.  Authors are notable because of the importance of  what they write, just as musicians are for their music.  worldcat shows about 15 books with 300 or more copies in libraries, Considering the short life-span of children's fiction, that's very substantial. More important are the translations: 14 of her books have been translated into Portuguese, 12 into Norwegian and 12 into Swedish, 10 into French, 6 into Italian, 4 into German, 3 Hebrew, 2 Dutch, 2, Spanish.  They;'re published by one of the major children's publishers. That's way enough for notability.  DGG ( talk ) 05:17, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:HEY, WP:OUTCOMES, and DGG. According to the Heymann standard, Tokyogirl79 has done a fine job of fixing up the problems noted in the nomination, especially in sourcing.  I have great "Respect for contributors willing to improve articles of questioned notability...." In the past, articles about authors often must be fixed up, sometimes due to bad paid editing. In agreement with DGG, reviews and quantity of translations are often the only ways to prove that an author is notable; see, e.g. Amy Krouse Rosenthal, which infamously went from speedy deletion to DYK status in two days. Finally, we have to be more welcoming of women's BLPs. Bearian (talk) 18:44, 8 October 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.