Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Helen Bailey


 * 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. Michig (talk) 07:09, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Helen Bailey

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:AUTHOR. Her work is exclusive to a book series that does never have a separate Wikipedia article, and as of now it seems the major thing possibly notable of her is her death. I'd say we either delete or rename to Death of Helen Bailey, as the person by herself isn't necessarily notable. Rusted AutoParts 05:37, 19 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Note - Not sure I agree with the above comment. Both her life's work and death have received extensive coverage and if that isn't notable then I struggle to see what is. The page is updated and referenced so what's the issue? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MalibuJambo (talk • contribs) 09:49, 19 July 2016 (UTC)  — MalibuJambo (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Note - I strongly disagree with the suggestion to delete this entry. Perhaps the proposer doesn't know the British children's books scene very well, since Helen was (and remains) an incredibly popular author in the important Young Adult field. Her name is widely known, not just by children and young people but by publishers, booksellers, and throughout the book trade. The Bookseller trade journal has been publishing countless tributes to Helen from her peers. She was also well known for her work in the bereavement field, and was highly respected in that area too. She is by no means purely known for the tragic circumstances of her recent death. I would strongly support keeping this article, but it needs revision to reflect her huge contributions in life, rather than dwelling on her death. Fayfran (talk) 10:52, 19 July 2016 (UTC) — Fayfran (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete - there is no evidence of notability as an author here. Most refs relating to notability are own web-site or sales sites. The rest are all newspaper reports of her disappearance and death. Whilst it would be nice to think that murders were so unusual that they conferred notability here, regrettably they don't. Thankfully they are quite rare in the UK but Wikipedia is a global encyclopaedia and the prospect of having an article for every murder in the Unites States or parts of Africa or the Middle-East would be an impossibility.  Velella  Velella Talk  11:03, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Please take into account this 2015 Guardian interview, as well as the other material now added to the article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:31, 20 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep – Completely disagree with the original poster requesting deletion. Helen is a popular author of the Electra Brown series which is much loved by young adults. She had 22 books published. She also made a huge impact to the lives of those suffering bereavement through her book and Planet Grief blog. She would have also have continued to achieve so much more had it not been for her tragic death. I strongly believe that her page should remain to reflect what she contributed in the time she was here. Mistyuk11 (talk) 11:06, 19 July 2016 (UTC) — Mistyuk11 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep – Just a very quick search found this interview in British national newspaper The Guardian, which suggests that she was indeed notable before her disappearance. I'll try to add it to the article's references as soon as I get the chance. JezGrove (talk) 11:19, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I've now included The Guardian reference in the article, and have also added Bailey's appearance on BBC Radio 4's Woman’s Hour. (You can hear it here, 27:45 mins in.) JezGrove (talk) 12:41, 19 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Note - Few of the keep votes have added in new info to the article, but a good bunch of that still stems from her own website, or a website about her. It doesn't enhance her international notability or her bibliography's international notability. Rusted AutoParts 20:01, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment She doesn't have to be "internationally notable" to be a proper subject for Wikipedia. Local topics with RS are fine for inclusion. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:27, 21 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Note – True, but it didn't take me very long to find both an interview published in an internationally recognised British newspaper and an appearance on a national radio station. There are very many WP articles about individuals which would struggle to demonstrate that level of notability. It may well be that the Helen Bailey article is not globally notable – but it is a very, very long way from being at the top of the list of articles for deletion on those grounds! JezGrove (talk) 20:35, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Rusted AutoParts - I've just clicked on 'Random article': the first two articles I found were the completely unreferenced 2012–13 Princeton Tigers women's ice hockey season (not tagged as such, for what it's worth), and McGillivray Creek (British Columbia), which has a single reference that appears to be out of date and goes nowhere (no tags on that one, either). Given the apparently dire state of so many WP articles, I'm not sure why the Helen Bailey one has been singled out as a priority for deletion? JezGrove (talk) 21:57, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not a heavily involved editor in terms of searching for articles that might not be notable. I frequent [{Deaths in 2016]] and just happened to notice her article. Just basing my decision on prior discussions about the article. Rusted AutoParts 22:03, 19 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Bailey was the subject of a Telegraph obituary which suggests notability. This article is a mess with very poor referencing but that is a matter of editing quality not notability of the subject. MurielMary (talk) 07:52, 20 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. The widespread publicity over her disappearance and death is due to her pre-existing notability - she was notable before she disappeared, not because of her disappearance.  Notability is confirmed by the Telegraph obit, which also confirms details of her bio.  Will expand article - and my comments here - once my current access problems are resolved.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:00, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * PS: Now receiving international as well as UK coverage -, .   The coverage is a consequence of her inherent notability - not the nature of her disappearance or death.  See also 2008 interview here and 2015 Guardian interview with her here.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:15, 20 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. I cannot agree with the proposer's rationale. Furthermore, WP:AUTHOR states that the person must have "created" a "well-known work or collective body of work". Ask a certain age group and they will confirm how well-known her work is within that particular age group. As she is a published author, and the subject of many critical reviews of her work in the public domain, I am happy with her level of notability. Ref (chew) (do) 13:31, 20 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. I cannot agree with the proposer.  Ms Bailey had two different notable sets of 'fans' for her writing - first as a children's author (of which my niece and friends were fans but probably not known by adults without teenage girls in the family) and latterly as the author of both the blog 'Planet Grief' and the subsequent book 'When Bad Things Happen in Good Bikinis'.  Numerous articles in the press can be found about both Planet Grief/When Bad things Happen in Good Bikinis' many months before she went missing and brought her to a much wider adult population and as a result of this brought her into the non print world of Radio 4, etc.  She also had a successful career in licensing of Snoopy in the UK prior to her husband's death.   That she had so many column inches were published before her body was found shows that she played an important part in the world of publishing/authorship.  The manner of her disappearance and death is relevant given that her links with online support groups brought her into contact with the man charged with killing her but neither define who Ms Bailey was and her 'right' to have this Wiki page.  Crossaboutdeletion (talk) 14:19, 20 July 2016 (UTC) — Crossaboutdeletion (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep there are enough references about her from prior to her death. I'm adding a few new ones to the article that I've found. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:27, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep definitely notable enough for an article. She published a well-known series of works that received multiple published reviews.  That is prima facia notability per WP:AUTHOR Klaun (talk) 17:26, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep it seems enough to have a separate article. Everything another was written above--Noel baran (talk) 10:11, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note - am I the only person who find the timing of this attempt to delete the entry for Ms Bailey's entry not being 'notable' - less than a week after her body was found - as if her family and friends don't have enough to worry about.Crossaboutdeletion (talk) 13:41, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - that would a relevant argument had it not been for the fact that the article was only created after she had disappeared and a man had been charged with her murder. Nobody had seemed to think her notable before those events.  Velella  Velella Talk 15:56, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It is an absolutely normal and regular occurrence for WP articles to be created soon after a person dies, when biographical details in articles and obituaries start to appear. In this case, the circumstances of her disappearance and death alerted article writers to her already-existing notability and suitability for an article.  Nothing untoward about that at all - there are many living people who meet WP's notability criteria but who have not yet had WP articles written about them.   Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:43, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree wholeheartedly. I was simply responding to an implied criticism that a deletion discussion was perhaps ghoulish. I don't believe that it is ghoulish or that the creation of the article was inappropriate under the circumstances. My view expressed above was that in this case, the standards of notability had not been met. It will be for the closing admin to determine whether that is so or not.  Velella  Velella Talk 17:13, 24 July 2016 (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.