Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holly Goddard Jones


 * 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 speedy keep. The nominator has withdrawn his nomination and there are no arguments for delete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:20, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Holly Goddard Jones

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

although it appears possible that one of her books might be notable, it doesn't appear she is. John from Idegon (talk) 22:05, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep I think the author of a notable book is notable and should have an entry because readers frequently search for context. I think the fact that her book was published by Harper Collins means that there is some reach to the book and its author.Tullyis (talk) 23:36, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Same reasons as above, her books have received notable press coverage and have been published by major publishing houses.TheWarOfArt (talk) 02:38, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 17 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. It's pretty common for us to have an article on the authors if they have multiple notable books. While notability isn't inherited by casual associations, an individual can gain notability for things that they have personally created. The only exception would be if the person was only notable for one thing, such as writing one book or directing one movie, where we could argue that we could have an article about their creation. However if we don't have an article on said creation, it's entirely appropriate to retain the author's article as opposed to creating a new article about the book and redirecting there. However in this instance it looks like both books have received coverage (as evidenced by this Oprah book review and this [ALA book recommendation] for Girl Trouble) and we could probably even rationalize a separate article for each of the books if we find more coverage. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   04:33, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Withdraw In deference to 's much more extensive experience at AfD and her sound argument. John from Idegon (talk) 20:24, 17 April 2014 (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.