Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joan Elliott Pickart


 * 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. This is a close one, but essentially the keep arguments were augmented by improvements to the article during the debate, which were not themselves challenged. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  16:32, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Joan Elliott Pickart

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Doesn't meet WP:NOTABILITY - takinng to AfD rather than prod in case I'm being blinded by how much of it is unencyclopaedic. Boleyn (talk) 07:47, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:15, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 09:27, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: To discuss Megalibrarygirl's sources.
 * Delete There doesn't seem to be any media coverage about this particular author. Cheeburger (talk) 17:07, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment There is some coverage of her work. The Dispatch, 2006, Library Journal, 2010 (paywalled), and Tucson Citizen, 1984. It's hard writing about Romance authors... they're often widely published, but under-reviewed. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:42, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   14:30, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak delete - This person clearly contributed to the genre of trashy romance novels. There are one or two pieces of coverage for her books in moderate level sources. It's definitely not clear to me this person meets WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG. NickCT (talk) 15:40, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep She meets WP:NAUTHOR, "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a ... collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of ... multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." I have deleted the unencyclopaedic content and added biographical details. I have also added reviews from the South Bend Tribune, The Dispatch, the Romantic Times, plus an article from the Tucson Citizen. Although WP:NAUTHOR doesn't specify non-local coverage, those are from Arizona, Indiana and Illinois, as well as the national Romantic Times. I have added some quotes from reviews - more could be added. I don't have access to the Library Journal review which Megalibrarygirl found - perhaps she would like to add it. RebeccaGreen (talk) 06:42, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree with . There's enough reviews of her work in RS to pass NAUTHOR#3. I was on the fence, but I'm glad RebeccaGreen found more reviews than I did and did a WP:HEY. I added the LJ article quickly, as I have to get going for the moment! Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:07, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep for reasons given by RebeccaGreen.NotButtigieg (talk) 10:29, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - Passes GNG. Missvain (talk) 06:05, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. She doesn't meet WP:NAUTHOR, as she fails the additional criteria (emphasis mine) of In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. Also, WP:NAUTHOR is not an over-ride of WP:GNG (unlike say, WP:NPROF), and its heading states People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included.  Ultimately, pieces of sub-RS from local papers, most of which are short reviews on her works and not her as a subject, is a thin case, and really a fail of WP:GNG.  However, there is no WP:PROMO here (she is now deceased), time has been spent tidying up the article by, and it is now in better shape; given the amount of her works, I could therefore see a WP:PRESERVE and WP:NOTPAPER case for not deleting it as this stage. Britishfinance (talk) 11:28, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , I strongly agree with your views on NAUTHOR, and I wonder if it's not worth having a discussion somewhere about tightening up the criteria. It seems to me that that clause is intended to cover instances where the body of work as a whole has been the subject of critical coverage or commentary, not to broadly include anyone who has had some books reviewed ever (thus injecting notability upwards from reviews of books to their author as has been argued here). &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 21:25, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , I have seen arguments put forward at AfD that any independent review of a book is a pass of NAUTHOR and thus a Keep (even though NAUTHOR is not an over-ride of GNG like NPROF in any instance). I don't think NAUTHOR was not written with this in mind (or almost every published author would get a BLP using WP:MILL reviews of their books as support). The same issue is also happening with NMUSIC to bring ordinary musicians, who should really never make an entry into any normal encyclopedia (e.g. we are really pushing what are NEXIST arguments, into GNG arguments, in my view).  I think it may need a broader discussion to clarify the wording. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 11:02, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is a clear failure of WP:NAUTHOR#3, and I find 's selective quotation of the criteria in her argument to be somewhat disingenuous. The relevant wording omitted from her argument is bolded: The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. If the person's one significant individual work, or their whole body of work, is not in and of itself significant and well-known, the person in question fails NAUTHOR3. It's clear from the paucity of reviews in this case that the body of work is not, in this case, significant and well-known, and therefore the subject fails NAUTHOR#3. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 21:25, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Disingenuous? I disagree with your take, but that doesn't mean that you can't assume good faith of mine and 's, . There has never been any discussions at AfD where there's been a need for the whole body of work, because it mentions "work" too, which is singular. We do have multiple independent reviews here and that's all that's needed. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:10, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It is disingenuous to intentionally quote around the phrase "significant or well-known" when quoting notability criteria. That's like not including "fully-professional league" when quoting NFOOTY - it's a significant omission that changes the interpretation of the criteria. The fact that some reviews of some of her books exist does not make those individual books, or her body of work as a whole "significant or well-known". If there's enough reviews for individual books to pass WP:GNG, they might be considered notable enough to have an article per our standards, but that doesn't make them "significant or well-known" in a broad sense that would spread notability upwards to the author by default (by your argument if I wrote one book that got three reviews I'd immediately be a notable enough author to have an article, even if I wrote nothing else and died in obscurity, which is just silly). &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 22:38, 13 January 2020 (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.