Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dorothy Malone (writer)


 * 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   no consensus. WP:NPASR. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 19:35, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Dorothy Malone (writer)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Cookbook writer with no independent reliable sources about her. I created this article almost four years ago when I was less familiar with the notability criteria; no significant expansion has happened and no sources have been found. There is a blog post (not reliable, of course) that mentions that Malone was one of William Randolph Hearst's "Prudence Penny" writers, but as that post points out, a recent article in the LA Times on Prudence Penny does not mention Malone. Mike Christie (talk) 14:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete No independent, third-party, reliable sources to help establish notability under WP:N. Cheers, CP 18:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep Her most important book "How Mama could cook!" is in about 50 WorldCat libraries, which is pretty good for one published 60 years ago. It was reviewed in the NYTimes,  and other papers.  Her Cookbook for Brides, was similarly reviewed. The prebuilt G news search above is a fine example of how not to search.     DGG ( talk ) 03:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That review only contains four sentences about the book, and nothing usable about Malone herself. If the book is notable, then an article about it could give what information is known about the author without requiring a separate article for her.  If the book isn't notable, then Malone probably isn't either.  Mike Christie (talk) 13:23, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete It appears that the book mentioned by DGG above may meet WP:BK and could be a suitable article subject. WP:CREATIVE criterion #3 is probably not met, as that would require the subject to have "created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." In the absence of evidence in reliable sources that Malone's book is considered significant and well-known and has been subject to such articles or reviews, deletion is proper. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 17:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * she did create a whole body of work; I mentioned only a representative one: there are also Cookbook for Beginners., N.Y.: Ace, 1947 and Cookbook for brides.  New York, A.A. Wyn [1947],  The NYT times review makes a book notable, and an author who writes several important books is notable  . As a general strategy, we'd do netter to have the article about the author, rather than the individual books, which are best mentioned in the article on the person. (One of the usual reasons for that does not apply here, that the author of one successful book will generally write more--she's no longer alive).  `    DGG ( talk ) 16:31, 31 January 2010 (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.