Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edwina Preston


 * 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. Consensus that the sourcing reviews of the books is sufficient to demonstrate notability for the subject per NAUTHOR Nosebagbear (talk) 10:36, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Edwina Preston

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable writer and musician, borderline speediable. Sources cited are primary, or reviews of her books that don't provide significant coverage of herself, and a search finds nothing better. Doesn't satisfy WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO or WP:AUTHOR notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:43, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:43, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:43, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:43, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:43, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:43, 9 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. Austlit lists multiple reviews for her work . duffbeerforme (talk) 06:44, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Routine book reviews aren't enough to satisfy WP:AUTHOR; you'd need "significant critical attention" etc. for that. And while they might go towards establishing notability of the books, they don't contribute to WP:GNG of the author without sigcov of the latter. That's my interpretation of the guidelines, at any rate. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:30, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Those five newspaper and journal reviews establish significant coverage in my view, but I agree it's borderline. However, I don't agree that notability of the author in and of herself needs to be justified separately, given WP:AUTHOR seems to state as a criteria that it's enough if, "The person's work (or works) has ... won significant critical attention". Meticulo (talk) 11:09, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that AUTHOR allows the author to gain notability through their works. My first point was that I don't see the AUTHOR criteria being met here. My second point was that GNG notability cannot be inherited, so just because the books have sigcov, that alone doesn't make the author notable. Happy to be proven wrong on this, though. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:38, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * From a practical perspective, I'd rather we have one longer article for the author rather than short stubs for each of her notable books. pburka (talk) 16:02, 10 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep per Duffbeerforme and Meticulo. Borderline, but enough in my view. Deus et lex (talk) 13:31, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep as passes WP:NAUTHOR with reviews in major Australian reliable sources. An artist's work whether they are a writer, musician, painter, and so on cannot be seperated from the notability of the person and there are many famous authors who keep their biographical details strictly secret, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:33, 10 June 2021 (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.