Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J.M. Frey


 * 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, per clear consensus. bd2412 T 20:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

J.M. Frey

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article has been tagged for multiple problems since 2012 and it seems time for the community to weigh-in. In summary, it is a CV, full of OR, and has no real RS. The ref list consists of FaceBook fanpages, press releases, promo from her publisher, etc. The only independent source is a review of one of her books in Publishers Weekly, but that is pretty weak, since this is a trade publication that reviews around 10,000 books per year (much of what is published). The article for this book, Triptych, has many of the same PROMO problems. Finally, it was written by a SPA whose 1st edit was creating this article. Agricola44 (talk) 21:15, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:48, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:48, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:48, 3 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Weak keep I cleaned up the article a little. Her writing has been reviewed in RS, but I would like to see more coverage of her. Squeaks by for CREATIVE. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:50, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable author whose works have been covered by places such as Publisher's Weekly. She meets all WP guidelines for authors.--SouthernNights (talk) 01:04, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Would it be possible to state what other factors you believe render her notable?...because coverage by Publisher's Weekly isn't one of them. To repeat what's in the AfD statement, PW is a trade pub that reviews around 10,000 books per year, i.e. a large fraction of the world's books that are published. Agricola44 (talk) 05:03, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * PW doesn't review EVERY book or even a large fraction of the world's books. The United States alone, in 2013, published 304,912 books. If we add other English speaking countries like UK, Australia, NZ and Canada, that bumps it up to 540,646. In addition, PW does review books in Spanish, which would bump up the number to 620,177 if we include Spain, Argentina and Mexico. 10,000 books is a lot of books to be reviewed, but they are hardly reviewing a large fraction of the "world's books." Therefore, getting critical attention for her writing shows she passes CREATIVE because PW has to decide which books to review out of this huge pool of books. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:12, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't want to get into snobbery here and I know you work at a library, but 300K or 500K or whatever number we pick as the "total" is misleading. What I referred to was "serious books" (for complete lack of a better term) and I think it is fair to say that 10,000 is a large fraction of the serious books that are published per year. I would assume, though I have not checked, that your figure of 300K includes, for example the gajillions of ISBN'd coloring / children's / craft / hobby / knitting / etc books published every year, the mega-gajillions of ISBN'd vanity books (Bowker assigned ~700K ISBNs to self-publishers in 2015), ISBN'd "for dummies" books, ISBN'd "how to" books, self-improvement and amateur psychology books, etc. etc. I'm sure some of these are reviewed in PW too, but I think "review" is taken here to mean a selective review in a topic-specific publication, not a trade review in a publication that only does reviews. We clearly disagree, but I would just point out that one of the ramifications of your argument is that, if what you say is true, then we have 10,000 articles on notable authors we should be creating every year. Agricola44 (talk) 20:31, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Coverage by Publisher's Weekly absolutely is an indicator of an author's notability. The magazine is a highly respected source of reviews and coverage of the publishing world. Next thing you'll be arguing that coverage in the New York Times isn't an indicator of a subject's notability b/c the NYTimes covers 1000s of people each year.--SouthernNights (talk) 00:14, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but that's a very misrepresentative argument. PW's very purpose is very focused: trade review of current books. It is relatively non-selective in what appears there (10,000 reviews/year) and it is targeted to a relatively small segment of society: those in the "book business". Most people outside this small world have never heard of it. Conversely, NYT is a mainstream news source, arguably among the half-dozen most important news sources in the entire world, covering "everything" and read by hundreds of millions of people daily...and, as such, is extremely selective. And I agree with your second point. For example, anyone sufficiently notable to have an obit or review in the NYT is sufficiently notable for WP (with the converse being obviously not true). In the end, Frey's notability claim seems to rest mainly on a single obscure work that was reviewed as a matter of routine course in a trade publication. For reference, I'm currently in a slugfest arguing "keep" over at Cassie Jaye AfD, where I maintain the opposite is true. Like Frey, notability seems to hinge mainly on one work, but unlike Frey, this work has been the subject of many reviews in mainstream, i.e. selective news sources. I think I've said about all there is to say. Best wishes, Agricola44 (talk) 06:38, 6 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep the article needs significant cleanup. However, there's enough to meet notability, and I see no other reason for deletion. 15:47, 6 October 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Power~enwiki (talk • contribs) 15:47, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - Passes WP:GNG. --  Dane talk  20:08, 7 October 2017 (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.