Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ida Ferguson


 * 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. I'm not moving or renaming anything, as it seems we need more discussion on that before an agreement is reached. Mgm|(talk) 10:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Ida Ferguson

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This has remained totally unverified since its 2005 creation. Non-notable writer; book is extremely borderline, but a weak case can be made for it (unlike author). Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  03:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Well, the book DOES exist - it is listed at Amazon, although naturally they don't have any copies (it was published more than 100 years ago). No other coverage on Google, no way to evaluate the significance of book or author. --MelanieN (talk) 04:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)MelanieN
 * Keep After a little more searching I find that the book was considered significant enough that the National Library of Canada brought out a reproduction copy of it in 1980. I'll add that information to the article. --MelanieN (talk) 04:53, 3 December 2009 (UTC)MelanieN
 * Keep. Comment. See this and this for starters.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak delete - There are a lot of books and a few of those seem as though they could be notable with a bit of work but I can't find any evidence that the woman herself is notable. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 16:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * clarification - there are not "a lot of books" by Ferguson, if that's what you mean; these all relate to the same book, her first and (AFAIK) only work. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  17:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Question Your complaint when calling for deletion was that the subject was unverified. It is verified now; both you and I have added references. Are you switching your complaint to non-notable? I'd like to be clear what criteria you are basing your call for deletion on. --MelanieN (talk) 15:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)MelanieN
 * reply - your point is an excellent one; see my modification to original nomination. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  15:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Move to the book title. We seem to have no biographical information about the subject other than that she wrote this book (unless she later moved south and is the same Ida May Ferguson who was children's librarian for the Minneapolis Public Library) but the sources in the article seem to be just about enough to show notability for the book. The precise title of the book seems to be in doubt, with some sources saying Tisab Ting, or, The electric kiss and some saying Tisab Ting, or, The electrical kiss: Worldcat sits on the fence and lists both. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:57, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Good idea! especially since she wrote under a pseudonym, Dyjan Fergus. About the title, the republished version uses "electrical", and so does the reference in the book about Canadian science fiction. But Tisab Ting, or, The Electrical Kiss is quite a mouthful. Maybe the article could just be called Tisab Ting. In any case I change my vote from Keep to Move. --MelanieN (talk) 15:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)MelanieN

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 02:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep, leave decision on possible move/merge/redirect to ordinary editing processes. Article on book is probably best result, but that's not an AFD decision. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep for now, maybe rename later --- BloodGrapefruit2 (talk) 01:51, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep An author may write more books--and if the first one is notable, usually does, whereas a book does not normally acquire more authors. Therefore the usual case should be to keep the author article as much more likely to be expanded.    DGG ( talk ) 05:21, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. An author whose first book was published in 1896 is unlikely to be writing any more. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:09, 11 December 2009 (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.