Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Irina Reyn


 * 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. v/r - TP 17:58, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Irina Reyn

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This author appears to have written only one book and edited another. Her winning of the Goldberg Prize for Jewish Fiction by emerging writers is not sufficient to meet WP:AUTHOR, nor are the book reviews she has written. Her teaching position would not seem to meet WP:PROF, either. The lack of substantial coverage of her fails WP:GNG. Novaseminary (talk) 02:30, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  — &mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 20:55, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Irina Reyn overwhelmingly meets WP:AUTHOR #3 (4c). Her book What Happened to Anna K "has been the subject of ... multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" "has won significant critical attention"—"'What Happened to Anna K' by Irina Reyn: Channeling Leo Tolstoy, novelist finds tragic romance" from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, "'Anna K.,' From Russia To Queens — With Love" from NPR, "'What Happened to Anna K.'" from the San Francisco Chronicle, "Anna's modern makeover: From Russia, with love and all its complications, comes Anna Karenina, who settles in New York in Irina Reyn's updating of the Tolstoy classic" from Newsday, "What Happened to Anna K. by Irina Reyn" from the Houston Chronicle, "Anna Karenina is alive and well: Irina Reyn's brisk, audacious first novel transforms Tolstoy's Russians into soulless N.Y. immigrants." from the Los Angeles Times, "What happened to Anna K.: A modern take on a tragic romance" from The Christian Science Monitor, "Fooling with a classic - First novelist recasts 'Anna Karenina' with skill, resonance" from The Philadelphia Inquirer, "Familiar Russian story gets an update, change of place" from the Chicago Tribune, "Anna in America" from O: The Oprah Magazine, and "Pitt instructor vividly depicts immigrants in debut novel" from the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. Booklist, Kirkus Reviews, Library Journal, and Publishers Weekly have also reviewed the book. Reyn has also been interviewed about her book—"Just Asking . . . Irina Reyn: A debut novelist talks about taking a fresh look at Anna Karenina" from The Wall Street Journal and "PW talks with Irina Reyn: Tolstoy in Queens" from Publishers Weekly. All this is more than enough to enough notability. Goodvac (talk) 08:11, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Being tenth on Entertainment Weekly's 2008 best fiction list and winning an award for emerging writers (read: not yet notable wirters) doesn't qualify the novel as a "significant or well-known work, or collective body of work", at least for WP:N purposes, does it? That is also part of AUTHOR #3. I find it difficult to believe that an assistant professor who wrote one novel which did get several generally positive reviews, but did not win any major literary award, and who has had very little written about her herself in RSs meets WP:N. It wouldn't suprise me one bit if she writes more and gets wider acclaim or gets covered herself in RSs, but I don't see it yet. Novaseminary (talk) 03:48, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That you personally feel that an "assistant professor who wrote one novel which did get several generally positive reviews" is not notable is not relevant. The fact is that if Reyn meets WP:AUTHOR, she is notable. If you disagree that #3 qualifies, fine, #4 qualifies indubitably: "The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums." What Happened to Anna K has "won significant critical attention", as evidenced by the numerous reviews above. Goodvac (talk) 03:57, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Indubitably, this is all our "personal feelings", I hope based on our readings of policy and guidelines as applied to this author. I would say the case for 4 is even weaker. I do not think an author's book having received several reviews is the same as a body of work having "won significant critical attention". This just highlights how far she has to go, doesn't it? One would think "a" through "d" of 4 all represent about the same level of accomplishment, just in different ways. Are the reviews of her one book anywhere analogous to "a significant monument"? Novaseminary (talk) 04:08, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "Critical attention" is equivalent to having received reviews (from critics) on one's work. The evidence for the "significant critical attention" is overwhelming. What would you consider "significant critical attention", if it isn't the 14 detailed reviews and 2 interviews above? Goodvac (talk) 04:16, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Novaseminary (talk) 03:39, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete fails WP:GNG. Many passing mentions of this persons book is not significant coverage of the person. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:20, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You have just voted Delete fails WP:GNG. at 25 AfDs in about 23 minutes. How did you assess the notability of this author in two minutes? Please explain how the two interviews listed above do not constitute significant coverage and how the 14 in-depth reviews above are "passing mentions". The interviews alone already satisfy the GNG, but Reyn's passage of WP:AUTHOR (4c) further bolsters her notability. Goodvac (talk) 22:07, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 6 October 2011 (UTC)




 * Keep. Special shout-out to Goodvac for making the case in triplicate, but really, not even necessary if you do a web search and read the results. Coverage, in numbers and in substance. Makes me want to go out and read a book, for crying out loud, instead of spending my time sending justifiably-obscure Romanian footballers to WP perdition. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:03, 6 October 2011 (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.