Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessica Dettmann


 * 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. Firm consensus that NAUTHOR is satisfied with a well-covered single major work. (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 22:53, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Jessica Dettmann

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not appear to meet either WP:GNG or WP:NAUTHOR, as there is a single, notable book, and all the press comes out of that book. Might be a case of WP:TOOSOON.  Onel 5969  TT me 12:42, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  Onel 5969  TT me 12:42, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  CASSIOPEIA(talk) 12:50, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  CASSIOPEIA(talk) 12:50, 7 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep - This author is published by a major publishing house, has been on national and international tours and is highly regarded in her genre. The fact that she’s only published one novel so far is irrelevant. She has extremely notable people backing her work and the Daily Telegraph has tipped her as “Australia’s next Liane Moriarty”Locochoko (talk) 15:06, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - A google news search shows her work has been reviewed in the Sydney Morning Herald, Daily Telegraph (Sydney), Law Society Journal of New South Wales, interviewd by ABC News. There also seems to be some reviews in German, but I do not read German, so can't check them out. Seems to pass WP:GNG and/or WP:BASIC. Netherzone (talk) 17:32, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Criteria 3 of WP:NAUTHOR does not requiere for multiple notable works. Authoring a single book that has been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews seems to fit that requirement. I also feel WP:GNG is met as there is also non trivial coverage about the subject in some of those sources focused on the book. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 08:22, 14 June 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.