Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hermione Thompson


 * 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 delete.  Sandstein  12:29, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Hermione Thompson

 * – ( View AfD View log )

(not quite an author, but author-related, hence the categorisation)

I can't discern sufficient notability for this editor. Sources are a press release, a self-written blurb , an uncritical interview , and - the best of the lot - an also-about-her article in Publishers Weekly. I don't think that does in terms of WP:GNG (and I'm not sure what SNG would apply). -- Elmidae (talk • contribs) 00:23, 27 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk • contribs) 00:23, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk • contribs) 00:23, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:15, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:01, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete a non-notable editor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:14, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep There are enough articles in Bookseller and other trade press referring to her as the representative buying a manuscript or similar stories to suggest meeting GNG:, , , , . Although, with the exception of the last article which is already cited in our article, none of these are significantly about this person, they are significant-enough reflections of her notable role in the publishing industry to convince me that GNG has been minimally met.  I know that's not the most ringing endorsement but WP:N doesn't demand more that that. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:29, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   16:43, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Seems to not satisfy WP:SIGCOV, the links mentioned revert back to one mention of the same source again. Delta fiver (talk) (UTC) 17:17, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Multiple articles published independently of both the subject and each other in the same major industry journal are not what I'd classify as "one mention of the same source." If I cited five articles about different aspects of John F Kennedy's presidency in Time, would that count as "one source"?  Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:23, 11 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV. Primary sourcing galore (including those listed above). Thebookseller articles are all press releases. Google search on her name plus "editor" turned up only three pages, none from independent third-party sources. sixty nine   • whaddya want? •  07:44, 17 October 2020 (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.