Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gay Hay


 * 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. While a slim majority voted to delete, NOTVOTE applies and I don't feel that that's strong enough consensus for deletion, especially given that the article was improved during the AfD to the extent that one of the initial delete !voters changed to keep. I don't see why I should relist this a third time against policy, so I have closed it. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 04:42, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Gay Hay

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This author has not received sufficient coverage or been credited with sufficient influence to satisfy WP:NAUTHOR. Main claim to fame is being a finalist (unsuccessful) in the 2014 NZ Post Book Awards, which isn't enough on its own. I can not loocate the type of sourcing we would usually require for an article about a fiction author. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:54, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:54, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:54, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:54, 21 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. WorldCat shows holdings of most of her books to be in the double-digits (a few low triple digits), which, in the world of children's literature, is quite low. (Public libraries tend to have very substantial children's sections.) Agricola44 (talk) 12:49, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree, although editors need to remember that Hay is a New Zealand children's author, there is a total of around 500 New Zealand libraries, of those (and looking at the type of libraries listed), expect an absolute maximum of 150 NZ libraries that would conceivably hold her books, so if they were only released in NZ (not that i am saying this is necessarily the case here), mid/high double digits would be pretty good, anyway, toodles. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:05, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It is indeed not the case that distribution of her books is limited to NZ. They are distributed internationally, a fact demonstrated by a quick look at WorldCat entries. For example, it shows many US libraries, as well as libraries in UK, AU, Japan, Canada, etc. hold Fantail's Quilt. (Same is true for many of her other books, e.g. Watch Out, Snail.) So the 81 actual holdings of Fantail's Quilt are unfortunately not impressive. Agricola44 (talk) 14:41, 26 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete - lacks coverage in reliable sources to indicate the subject meets WP:NAUTHOR criteria.--SamHolt6 (talk) 00:31, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Per above, does not have enough coverage, fails WP:NAUTHOR. Nikoo.Amini (talk) 14:21, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete obviously fails WP:NAUTHOR, also these books do not even have articles created and insufficient amount of coverage to survive that AfD. Sheldybett (talk) 02:19, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep I have found and added more sources - and also corrected some of the information. Her book published in 2013 was a finalist in the 2014 awards, not her book published in 2015! Her first picture book was also a finalist in the LIANZA children's book awards in 2012. I am still looking for more sources, and will add quotes from reviews. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:55, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Might you clarify whether "finalist" is an actual category of the awards you mentioned? I don't see much on these awards (except web pages, e.g. like this one), so it is not clear whether these awards are significant, nor whether she even won any of them. Thx. Agricola44 (talk) 14:41, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The awards are notable in New Zealand. No, she did not win them - she was short-listed (which is what being a finalist means) for two. I have added quotes from reviews. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:05, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, just to clarify for non-NZ editors (sorry that i didn't do this sooner), the New Zealand Children's Book Awards are a big deal (just have a look at the authors/illustrators who have won/been finalists, although if you're not into kids books like yours truly you may still just go huh?:)), so having ones book(s) as finalists is no mean feat. ps. i was going to create articles for one or two of her books (i mite still:)) but as i have found (wading thru dozens of unfinished kid book articles on my lappie) unless an Antipodes' kids book gets released in the US (or old blighty) it is difficult to find coverage/reviews (with ozzies/nzs being sports mad ... mmm, kids books written by sportspeople, nope even then reviews a few and far between:)), and that can take time if at all ie. Fantail's Quilt, original NZ pub of 2011/12, Kirkus review shows good ol' US publication as August 2019, see here. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:48, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * But, as I understand it, she did not actually win any of these awards, so how far does notability extend? Some of the reviews are helpful, but IMHO we shouldn't set much weight by trade reviews (like Kirkus and Publisher's Weekly) that do many thousands of reviews annually. Agricola44 (talk) 18:27, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Agricola44, I am always reluctant to keep writers or books scourced exclusively to brief reviews these two trade mags (unless starred), but we don't have to. We have New Zealand Listener and School Library Journal.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:00, 26 July 2019 (UTC)  Blocked sock. -- Scott Burley (talk) 07:56, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I understand, but, as is often the case when trying to dodge deletion, the article has now become a caricature of itself. It's now basically about 2 books that are not very widely held, that almost (but did not) win some awards, and that have been reviewed a few times (including pro forma reviews in Kirkus). Most of the article's text is now of the form reviewers wrote..., followed by lengthy quotes. There's almost nothing about the actual subject, excepting the unsourced OR of being "based in Pukerua Bay" and 1 sentence about PageBreak, as sourced from the subject's own website! I think this will be a pretty sorry example of a WP bio, if it is kept in this form. Agricola44 (talk) 19:56, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The reviews are about 3 books, not 2. They say that the author has written "poetic prose", "Short, sharp text [that] heightens the sense of tension and drama", "an engaging storyline", "spare but effective text", "minimal, loosely rhythmic text that uses many different verbal phrases", "simple telling", "lively text". That tells us a lot about the author's style of writing. They also say that there is "a strong message about predation", "An effective angle on environmental concerns"; one is "an information book for young readers about a little-known animal", and "the simple telling of one tiny creature’s natural world is enlightening" - that tells us about the author's concerns and intentions in writing. As for "based in Pukerua Bay" being "unsourced OR", it says that in the New Zealand Listener - I will add that source to that information. I did find sources about her work as a teacher, but didn't add them as it's not what makes her notable, but I will do so now. RebeccaGreen (talk) 03:49, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid you're missing my point. In your zeal to put this material in, you've changed the article to predominantly a PROMO version of what other people have said about her books – it's like 90% of the article. There's very little about Hay. It's all just gushing PROMO of her work. Agricola44 (talk) 13:42, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, that's your point of view. WP:AUTHOR specifically says "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." We could reduce the size of the quotes and still show that there are multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. (Personally, I do not think it's gushing or promotional, just informative.) You seem to have based your Delete !vote solely on library holdings, which are not actually mentioned in WP:AUTHOR - it is in WP:ACADEMIC, but that is not applicable to an author of children's picture books. We do not always have a great deal of biographical detail about authors, but in this case, we know her date of birth, her former profession, and where she lives. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:05, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Say what you will. The article has turned into PROMO, with little detail on the actual subject. Thanks. Agricola44 (talk) 00:24, 29 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. The books are published by Page Break, a company that might be a self-publishing vehicle (see here). As to the sources currently posted up in support of our subject's notability, they leave a lot to be desired:
 * A routine author profile in the Storylines Trust and Foundation website; a mention in a list of the 50 best children’s books of 2011 from the whole of N.Zealand; an advertorial in the Otago Daily Times about an educational jointly created by Hay & Martin; more promotional verbiage at the home page of Page Break; the news reported by Stuff that one of the subject's books is "shortlisted" and will be sent to baby Prince George; a name check among the crowd of non-winners in NatLib's list of "award winning 2014 New Zealand picture books"; another name check amongst, as the text author puts it, "dozens of books"; another listing among "the 50 best children's books of 2013", in which our subject's entry lands at No.45; and the inevitable Kirkus capsule review (another one here), from the publication that "covers everything"! A gallant keep-job, indeed, but not enough for WP:AUTHOR. -The Gnome (talk) 10:06, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The fact that the books are self-published is irrelevant. Two have been finalists for NZ Picture Book of the Year, and there are reviews in the Australian journal Reading Time, the US School Library Journal, and The New Zealand Listener. That is the basis of the claim that she meets WP:NAUTHOR. The lists verify that the book was a finalist for the awards. The "advertorial" is included because it verifies that Hay was a teacher before she started writing picture books, and the article about the books being sent to Prince George verifies where she is from (as does the author profile on Storylines) - ( claimed that that information was "unsourced OR"). Please distinguish between sources that verify information, and sources that establish notability. Furthermore, these reviews are what can be found online now - always, there are more sources that haven't been digitised or are behind paywalls and not findable unless one has a subscription. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:06, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Frankly, the line of argument that goes "There must be more sources out there, for sure" is beginning to grate. As to your comment that her books being self-published is something "irrelevant" I'm dumbfounded! The subject of the contested article fails all WP:NAUTHOR criteria; the only criterion one could hang a hat on might be 4c (The person's work [must have] won significant critical attention) but the sources extant (self-published, name drops, advertorials, and reviews in local media) are unfortunately nowhere near that hurdle. -The Gnome (talk) 16:23, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * So when a self-published book is short-listed for a prize, we ignore it because it's self-published? And how are Australian and US journals "local media" for a NZ book? WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES does not apply - I have added sources; I was just pointing out that there is a world beyond online sources. RebeccaGreen (talk) 17:18, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Gnome, while it is true that most self-published books sink without a ripple, it is also true that some self-published books are notable, and it is certainly true that our goal here is always to judge notability objectively and the sources now on the page show that this author meets WP:AUTHOR. I will mention that self pibblished is a trend in children's books because some writers find that they can make more money this way.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:12, 28 July 2019 (UTC)  Blocked sock. -- Scott Burley (talk) 07:56, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The vanity press aroma is but the spice. The main dish is tha lack of "significant critical attention," whether self-published or published by Hachette. I'm sorry but what is out there does not support WP:NAUTHOR 4c. And arguments to the effect that "there are bound to be more sources" are DOA. -The Gnome (talk) 06:26, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: To discuss the improvements since the nomination.
 * Keep the article has been significantly improved since it was nominated for deletion. Noahe123 (talk) 22:31, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   07:03, 28 July 2019 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Utterly puzzled by Gnome's last comment. Page is now sourced to a "best books" list, feature article coverage of this writer, short-list for a book prize, and multiple book reviews in WP:RS publications. It meets WP:AUTHOR.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:23, 28 July 2019 (UTC)  Blocked sock. -- Scott Burley (talk) 07:56, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Scott Burley (talk) 23:38, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete the author lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Polyamorph (talk) 14:48, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * changed to Keep, there is not much coverage but on further reflection RebeccaGreen's and E.M.Gregory' arguments are convincing. Polyamorph (talk) 17:17, 9 August 2019 (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.