Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elaine Lindsay


 * 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.  Sandstein  17:01, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Elaine Lindsay

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:PROF. Her claim to notability resides in being co-editor and "instrumental in the development" of an academic journal, but that falls short of the "head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal" in Notability (academics). StAnselm (talk) 00:55, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. StAnselm (talk) 00:55, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. StAnselm (talk) 00:55, 30 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete No evidence of significant achievement to pass WP:Prof unless some reputable book reviews can be found. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:10, 30 September 2021 (UTC).
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:12, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 01:50, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Xxanthippe I have included multiple book reviews of two of her major works. DrMushEa (talk) 02:09, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Could you indicate the significant ones? Xxanthippe (talk) 02:26, 30 September 2021 (UTC).

Xxanthippe Do you mean indicate the significant ones in the body of the article? FYI, this is the start of the project on the Women-Church journal as a significant contribution to Australian feminist theology. So, I am sure I will be able to add more to this page once the libraries open up and I am once again able to access the journal and other holdings. DrMushEa (talk) 02:33, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The ones that add most to notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:36, 30 September 2021 (UTC).
 * Xxanthippe I have now added them in the body of the article. DrMushEa (talk) 03:52, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I would also note that her inclusion in the Literary Encyclopedia which is described in Wikipedia as both authoritative and reliable qualifies her as notable. From the Literary Encyclopedia page: "Articles are solicited by invitation from specialist scholars, then refereed and approved by subject editors,[3] which makes the LE both authoritative and reliable."DrMushEa (talk) 03:56, 30 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep - I have access to The Wikipedia Library, and from EBSCO, there are additional reviews available: Brady, V. (2002). Rewriting God: Spirituality in Contemporary Australian Women’s Fiction; Feminist Poetics of the Sacred: Creative Suspicions (Book). Australian Literary Studies, 20(3), 274; McSorley, J. (1998). An Artist’s Life. Social Alternatives, 17(4), 80–81; Brady, V. (1999). Book Reviews. Australian Literary Studies, 19(1), 111. Beccaynr (talk) 04:24, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: But these are reviews of a book she co-edited. They do nothing to demonstrate her own notability. StAnselm (talk) 04:30, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment The review titled "An Artist's Life" is for The Diaries of Barbara Hanrahan and discusses why editing matters is a creative act, as well as Lindsay's introduction, and states, "The strength of this work lies in the careful editing of the diaries into a coherent picture of an artist's life." The review titled "Book Reviews", which includes a major focus on The Diaries of Barbara Hanrahan, states, "It is this search which generates the terror and glory, the naivety and complex ambiguity of Hanrahan's life and work, and we must be grateful to Elaine Lindsay for the Diaries which make this clear." And WP:CREATIVE#3 says (with emphasis added) 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 primary subject [...] of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. Beccaynr (talk) 04:52, 30 September 2021 (UTC) - comment edited to clarify editing is a creative act Beccaynr (talk) 13:12, 30 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep: She was the sole editor of Rewriting God, and was in fact a co-author there also, writing not just the usual introduction but the first two sections (88 pages), so it's a substantial contribution. As noted above, it's been reviewed by Brady 2002, which should obviously be summarised and cited in the article, as well as in: Haynes, R. "Review of Elaine Lindsay, Rewriting God: Spirituality in Contemporary Australian Women’s Fiction." Uniting Church Studies 8.1 (2002): 63-65. This certainly contributes to notability. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:18, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep as passes WP:NAUTHOR with independent secondary coverage of her written works including reviews in reliable sources so there is no need for deletion in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 02:18, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. I'd be more comfortable if she had at least two book-length authored works with reviews, but two reviews for the one she has (Rewriting God) and four for two edited books (Diaries and Preachers) makes a borderline case for WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:13, 4 October 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.