Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Janet Asimov


 * 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.  Sandstein  09:49, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Janet Asimov

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable writer and academician; does not meet WP:GNG, nor the specific guidelines WP:AUTHOR or WP:ACADEMIC. The entire basis for notability is that she was the second wife of Isaac Asimov. Isaac, of course, is very notable, but his notability does not extend to a family member who does not herself have any basis for notability independent of her spouse; see WP:NOTINHERIT.

I PRODded it, but it was removed with the comment "wrote her own novels", which misses the point. There's no indication that her novels were notable or that she is a notable novelist. TJRC (talk) 03:48, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 07:34, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 07:34, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 07:34, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 07:34, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 07:34, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 07:34, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 07:35, 7 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Weak, weak keep. A couple of her books (not in collaboration with Isaac) have been reviewed (poorly, but that and her association/collaboration with her husband is just barely sufficient IMO). Clarityfiend (talk) 07:47, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per the plethora of mediocre reviews uncovered by XOR'easter. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:11, 8 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Repeatedly reviewed:.
 * Gene Shaw, in a review for the Library Journal, remarked that [Notes for a Memoir, 2006] is “a fun read for Isaac Asimov fans,” but also acknowledged that the author’s writings about Isaac’s death and her resulting grief are poignant and moving. In a contribution for Booklist, reviewer Carl Hays opined of Janet Asimov: “She impresses with her knack for entertaining while informing.” A reviewer for the Analog SF Web site called the book “an eloquent reflection on life and love with Asimov and the importance of imagination. Bardi, writing for the Humanist, concurred, stating that “one concludes that these two writers learned muc from one another, shared an immense understanding, and filled volumes in the other’s heart and mind.”
 * Elsewhere, a Kirkus review says, "This Asimov writes more smoothly than the other one, but does less playing with ideas" . XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:07, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Another review of Notes for a Memoir: "Her work stands with his: holding hands, perhaps, but on its own feet" . XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:24, 7 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Fairly strong keep with the evidence provided by XOR&#39;easter . Sadads (talk) 01:33, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep An absurd nomination and PROD as it is easy to find detailed coverage including the SF Encyclopedia and Contemporary Authors. Andrew D. (talk) 17:53, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep While I understand the nomination, with almost all the current sources being from works closely connected to or by Asimov, it is clear that her body of work and outside sources show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:03, 13 February 2018 (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.