Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jayne Joso


 * 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 no consensus. No clear consensus has formed or appears to be likely to form between the different sides of this debate. A number have also commented on this being a borderline case, and others have offered commentary on whether the potential for a conflict of interest is a justification for deletion. I relisted this myself seven days ago, and since then most of the new arguments have advocated inclusion. Taking the entire two weeks into account, this seems sufficiently contentious to close as a no consensus at this time. KaisaL (talk) 01:28, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Jayne Joso

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I'm uncertain whether the subject of this article passes WP:GNG. There's at least one review of a book of hers at the TLS, and several external links to 3:AM magazine. The article was overly promotional and has been cut to bare bones prior to this AfD. If it survives, it can be built back up. See also Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:46, 21 June 2016 (UTC) Tagishsimon (talk) 01:46, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:58, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:58, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:58, 21 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete this unreferenced biography of a living person, which violates policy. The version before it was trimmed back to a stub was promotional, and included many unreferenced quotations, another policy violation. Compliance with these policies is mandatory and non-negotiable.  The editor with a conflict of interest must declare their connection openly, and comply with all our policies.  This is also required. If the article is properly referenced and the references show that she meets WP:AUTHOR, then I will happily change my mind.  Cullen328   Let's discuss it  03:01, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTPROMO and failing WP:GNG,WP:AUTHOR. This article was created in 2009 when the subject had just released her first novel. The intent was to promote the subject. Over the years, there has been long term COI editing. More important, there is a refusal to disclose the COI. I find this particularly troubling. If we examine the notability, the subject fails GNG because there is hardly any significant coverage in reliable and independent sources. While a novel written by her has been reviewed in the TLS, reviewing alone is not a claim of notability. The links to the 3AM Magazine are (1) A short story written by her - not an independent source, (2) An interview - primary source and possibly because she has submitted stories to the same magazine and (3) A review of her book. None of this satisfies WP:AUTHOR. Borderline notability combined with undisclosed COI editing is a good enough reason to delete. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:16, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Assuming the factual statements on the reception of her work in the long version are correct, which I imagine they are, she seems notable. I'm somewhat dubious that a quotation from a review of and in named publications, with a rough date, is actually "unreferenced". Johnbod (talk) 04:00, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Reply, please read our content policy Verifiability, which requires inline citations for all quotations. That earlier version does not comply and the COI editor has refused to comply. Cullen328   Let's discuss it  05:21, 21 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - borderline notability, and I think it's better to apply WP:TNT here: if someone without a COI wants to write the article from scratch and can demonstrate notability, then fine, but until then we shouldn't have an article. Cordless Larry (talk) 05:38, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete I converted a few of the refs given in the EL section to inline, and went on a search for more. For someone who has been a published novelist for many years, it's interesting that there's really nothing substantional in terms of reviews or mentions. There does seem to be one review behind the TLS Paywall, but outside of that the sources are very weak.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 06:07, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your efforts, . Cordless Larry (talk) 07:36, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks. These days, young literary novelists get far less coverage than they used to, in the UK at least. Johnbod (talk) 14:40, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * No thanks necessary, but thanks anyway! it's true that authors can turn it around and make a name for themselves. I recall having an deeply unsuccessful author friend twenty-five or so years ago. He later wrote a book about a boy in a boat with a tiger that was quite popular.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 21:14, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. The editor Dictionarylady has endured enough, and this is not the way forward.  And the subject appears notable.
 * The AFD nomination is highly unfair. The article was eviscerated then the AFD was opened, with nomination stating "The article was overly promotional and has been cut to bare bones prior to this AfD. If it survives, it can be built back up."  The main editor, who is the one who has full access to various sources, is intimidated from restoring the article and improving from that base.  If an AFD was going on and a deletion-voter stripped the article like that, I would strenuously object.  Deletion voters can place tags and they can make positive edits, but others must be allowed to expand the article and address tagged problems.  It put the article in horrible shape, so of course it is going to look bad.
 * I agree with User:Johnbod that the quotes in this version of the article before it was gutted (in this forceful and intimidating and unfair diff: "Remove uncited, tenuous or otherwise unctuous content per COI problem"), with approximate dating, is referencing. It seems absolutely incorrect and unfair for the article to have been tagged as being unreferenced (as it was in this edit at 20:48 June 20), when it included multiple references (albeit in External links), and when that referencing was being discussed and had been improved by the editor.  This was not the first imposition of that incorrect tagging.  It sees like a slap in the face, or multiple ones, to characterize it as unreferenced.
 * The Jayne Joso article was PRODDED with notice to editor at 13:05, 20 June, "because it appears to have no references" in my view clearly inappropriately, because the article did clearly have references (including link to Times Literary Supplement review, although that link was dead).
 * The editor was tagged as having potential COI at 15:52 June 20, then reasonably enough they replied, deleting the notice with "No COI, no gain from anything, factual information regarding education. Many thanks for taking care about this matter."
 * The editor was then (at 16:51 20 June) hauled to the COI noticeboard (Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard, see my comment there) where there has been inappropriate (IMO) dismissal of their disclosures in edit summaries about association with the subject and dismissal of statement that they do not have a financial interest, as if they are lying when they say they have some association but that does not rise to a COI. The editor has little experience in Wikipedia and rightfully can be wary of being permanently labelled somehow as having a COI.  Opening an AFD was announced at the COI noticeboard discussion "to see what the hivemind thinks", which IMO is as if it was punishment.
 * I do not see where "the COI editor has refused to comply" (as User:Cullen328 asserts above) about using inline citations.  They were editing to improve the article in response to tagging and user talk page comments, and their edit summaries show they thought they were providing the necessary referencing by giving links to the sources in External links section and, after the article was gutted, by footnoting from the listed titles of works by the writer.  For example, see this diff with edit summary: "Novels: trying to add these references from the Times Literary Supplement but need help with links and tidying... please help".  That added what I would call an inline citation.  I don't think they understand they can/should restore the full quotes and other deleted material.
 * The article was earlier (13:03 june 20) incorrectly BLP PRODed with threat of deletion in this edit. The PROD was a few hours later removed by this edit by the PRODing editor who acknowledged that was incorrect (because article was created before march 2010).  But the editor Dictionarylady was editing during that interval and experienced it.  (And the removing edit itself is one that installed the false, incorrect assertion that the article had no sources.)
 * I don't know if the editor knows they can respond at the COI noticeboard discussion. They were given notice about thbut that notice does not say so.  They were not given notice of the AFD, and i don't know whether that would have invited them here.  (I presume they know of the AFD from tag at the article, but I also presume they don't know how to handle COI and AFD processes.)
 * The deletion-voting editors might accurately respond that these practices are what is done normally. But these are too many actions, taken too quickly, and it appears to me this is overwhelming and coming down way too hard.  We all started with just one article.  We ourselves would have been driven away if treated like this.
 * For all the above, and because we know sources exist (though they are not all accessible online, e.g. the current Times Literary Supplement link goes to the beginning of a review but the rest is behind a paywall), I say "Keep" and stop this proceeding. -- do ncr  am  19:36, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't start this AfD, but I made the editor in question aware of it here, and encouraged them to participate. I also explained the COI issue here. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:30, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Great that you have done some explaining to the editor, as shown in at least four sections on your Talk page. But you did open and pursue the COI proceeding which created the appearance of problems, which is where the AFD nominator came from.  It is reasonable for them to be overwhelmed and unable to instantly correct all issues.
 * I see acknowledgement there that you were mistaken, apparently until 16:39 June 20, after the PROD and COI and more and more (some back-and-forth interactions at Talk pages)(21:58, 23 June 2016 (UTC))'', about the history of the article, that you thought it was as brand new article. If it were, demanding inline sourcing would be reasonable.
 * I see there that, about external links vs. inline citations, the editor has noted "It is tricky to go back and reference sources now, but I will be careful to do so in future", and then asked for some prioritizing. The reply refuses to prioritize, and in continuing discussion eventually points to one flowery phrase, at the same time as asserting there is "plenty that is contentious".  The challenging of everything, including by deletion of everything in the article, is unfair.  Especially when there is nothing contentious, no BLP problem tarring the reputation of someone, no question about the accuracy of any quote, and no other specific problem.  The editor was participating in removing flowery/promotional phrasing, and they have responded dozens of times, politely and reasonably, to demands at Talk pages and in edit summaries, by their replying at Talk pages and in edit summaries.
 * Add this challenge over at Commons to the photos in the article, opened at 22:18 on June 20, to the list of proceedings opened. That manufactures dispute over the photos that have been used in the article since March 2015, with no complaint from Jayne Joso or any photographer or anyone.  That adds confusion about how to communicate in our klunky systems, between commons and here.
 * This is too much. This is death by 1000 cuts but with them all inflicted at once.  The central complaint may be about COI, which may be complicated, which may verge on requiring the editor to out themself (which is a violation of our wp:OUTING policy), and which is not well handled in these multiple actions.  This is not how to guide or negotiate anything. -- do  ncr  am  01:01, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Be careful not to conflate the actions of several editors, . Some of what you describe was my action, but I didn't delete any article content or start this AfD. I was trying to help the editor understand the need to source articles, respect copyright and declare their apparent COI. When I raised the issue at the COI noticeboard, you'll notice that I was not calling for action against the editor, but rather requesting help dealing with the article. I'm not responsible for how people respond to that request. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:26, 23 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Responding:
 * Right, I understood the big deletion and the AFD creation were by another editor and I did not mean to imply otherwise.
 * In this edit I strike out my incorrect statement that opening the COI (at 16:51) was before realising the article was old (at 16:42). Okay, then the COI was opened by you just after figuring out the PROD action was incorrect, instead.  And after tagging of the article for appearance-of-COI, incorrectly tagging it for having no sources, and several back-and-forth interactions at their Talk, your Talk, and in edit summaries.
 * At the COI discussion, I earlier repeated my incorrect understanding of timing (despite my considerable effort to put in clock timings and specific diffs) and I reasoned from that (incorrectly) to suggest the COI was biased, and I apologize for that. However you explicitly invited help on the article content, while the article had incorrect "unsourced" tag displayed, and that conveyed negative tone in a different way.
 * Look, we're all used to tagging and to having different versions of the same issue raised in multiple forums, and we know when we have to respond and when not. But when I try to put myself in the shoes of a new (in terms of cumulative experience) editor who hadn't learned to sign comments and didn't even have a Talk page and wasn't "welcomed" (thank you for at least doing that first), I think there was way too much thrown at them (even though it was just a few things), and you were part of that.  And I think this AFD should not have been started.  Although this is done all the time to other new editors, by other experienced editors. -- do  ncr  am  21:58, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * We seem to be getting drawn into debate about process here. I accept my share of the blame for that, but I don't think this is the place for such discussions. The question here should be whether the subject is notable or not. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:20, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I also have access to the TLS articles, if those would be helpful to anyone. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:57, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I feel there needs to be clearer consensus here. Additional contributors to this AFD in the next seven days would be welcome. KaisaL (talk) 15:00, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep for now, mainly per doncram's argument. Note that some of the issues raised here are concerns for article improvement, not deletion. Yes, the author may not have fully understood verifiability. However, the sources were still in the article, which clearly shows that the article doesn't need deletion - just fixing. It sounds like some editors here dislike the editor for the conflict of interest and aren't considering alternatives to deletion such as article improvement because of the COI. Regarding WP:TNT, it's not in such a state at all, and deletion is not cleanup. Other editors have removed promotional language and helped resolve many of the major issues. Appable (talk) 23:15, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I would be happy to change my vote to keep (and indeed help rewrite the article), if notability can be demonstrated, . If it can't that's not something that can be fixed. At the moment, I'm not yet convinced that significant coverage exists, but I am open to persuasion if more sources can be found. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:20, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete this is no biography, and apparently no sources to create one - 'Author wrote two good books one in 2009 and one in 2011' is not a biography per WP:Author. A biography talks about a person's whole entire life, not two books Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:46, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I went back to an earlier version and tried to see if there was referenceable information - especially in the awards section. Unfortunately, none of the awards turn out to be truly awards in the sense one usually means. She was granted a one-week writer's stay at The Coracle, Ireland, International Writer's Residency. I assume that isn't in itself notable. She was given a grant from the Sasakawa Foundation, GB, "and our annual literature prize was awarded to Jayne Joso for a research visit to Japan, the setting for her next novel." here. And she got funding from the Arts Council England. These all are nice but none of them add up to notability IMO. Her books are held in a couple of dozen libraries in Worldcat. Her publisher, Alcemi, is a small, seemingly one-person publisher in Wales. It is a shame that this got caught up in the COI issue because that should not be what determines whether an article is kept. However, I fail to find that this meets WP:AUTHOR and regrettably must !vote delete, but without prejudice because this person could achieve notability in the future. LaMona (talk) 00:30, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I am sticking withh non-notable, the sources are not there. The "Sakawa award" in the last ref is another example of fake author hype, in that it is actually a tiny (£2000) "prize" for  travel. That's essentially an artist travel grant, and it is not particularly notable. I do not see "death by a thousand cuts", but rather an author with very weak notability and too much hype. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 01:42, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as I noticeably found nothing better at all, only 124 library holdings. SwisterTwister   talk  06:53, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete- As a biography this article falls flat as Alanscottwalker points out. There just aren't the necessary sources to meet WP:AUTHOR. Reyk  YO!  07:42, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KaisaL (talk) 15:00, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * delete I searched, and found nothing, nothing at all except her 88 twitter followers .  I even checked the Times Literary supplement mentioned above  here.  It looks to be mere listings of books published. I am not saying that there is nothing, only that if a contemporary author is notable, something will turn up on a search.  Unless, of course, it is WP:TOOSOON. E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:10, 6 July 2016 (UTC) Reversing iVote, see below.
 * Let me know if you want to see the full text of the TLS articles, . The first one cited includes two short paragraphs on one of Joso's books, and the second one is a three-paragraph review of another of her books. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:05, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Cordless Larry, yes, please, I would like to see that.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:44, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * If you drop me an e-mail,, I will reply with them attached. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:47, 6 July 2016 (UTC)


 * keep the 3 short reviews now on the page scrape over the notability as per our customary interpretation of WP:AUTHOR. More persuasive was my search of old TLS articles via factiva.  There I found a feature article, a Western Mail interview entitled Author's Notes (presumably a column on writers) 1 October 2011.  Also a review of Perfect Architect in Morning Star (British newspaper), by Paul Simon, 23 August 2011. E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:55, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The subject of this article is not books. We write book articles for books. There is still nothing that comports with WP:GNG, WP:BIO and WP:AUTHOR. No third-party independent has written the author's life and we need multiple substantial for a WP:BLP. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:22, 6 July 2016 (UTC) Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:06, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * In practice bio articles often are combo articles that are mostly about the artist's works, and may have very little about their life story. An artist is important because of their work.  We usually don't need a separate article on the list of works of a given architect, for example;  we list and describe the works in an article titled at the architect's name.  It's fine for the main coverage of a work to be within the bio article.  For notability, the works do count, absolutely, in my view. -- do  ncr  am  02:49, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * in the couple of years I've been doing AFD on authors, WP:AUTHOR part 3, has been operationalized as: 3 reviews of a a book comprise a work of sufficient notability for the author to pass the notability bar. Plus the interview I referenced above is a profile that gives some details of her life. And publisher's pages and the author info in "card" catalogues and other indexes of writers  are sufficiently reliable to be used in writing articles, albeit do not count towards notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:06, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * No. That's not what Author says, and it makes no sense in the context of the policies concerning biography cited, moreover, notability is not inherited, her life is not a thing, a book.  The single interview you reference gives nothing of her life to make a sourced biography, and its not independent because interviews are not independent, and they are primary. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:33, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with . Notability is not inherited and a simple review of the work does not constitute notability for the artist. GNG is very clear that significant coverage about the subject is needed. Should GNG not be satisfied, we look at WP:CREATIVE. The criterion 3 of creative is very clear that the author should have created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work AND such work must have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. The important thing is the "AND". Over here, I see no indication that her work is a significant or well-known work. And yes, interviews are primary and we don't use them for notability. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:14, 8 July 2016 (UTC)


 * weak keep We have reliable third party review of Jayne's work and we have primary sources for bio information. That is typically what we have for creative types including academics.  Not hugely over the bar, but over the bar IMO.  The article _was_ overly promotional.  Now it's overly short. Hobit (talk) 15:03, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I disagree here. We need reliable secondary sources about the subject to pass GNG. If a subject cannot pass GNG, we look at WP:CREATIVE. Over, here the subject passes neither. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:05, 8 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep I am on the same page with doncram on this one. This article on soso goes pass GNG Maybeparaphrased (talk) 01:19, 7 July 2016 (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.