Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julie Hamill


 * 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. Notability is established, per WP:AUTHOR. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 21:54, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Julie Hamill

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not pass WP:BIO; created by subject themselves. While the book "15 minutes with you" may or may not be notable, the author most probably is not.

Pinging who did a lot of work at the article (and removed a previous BLP PROD). Tigraan Click here to contact me 14:53, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Nominator has withdrawn nomination. See below. Lourdes  09:08, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:31, 23 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment I generally prefer !voting in Afds where I am not involved as an article contributor (purely my personal choice, as I feel I may not be able to comment neutrally in deletion discussions of any article where I have edited significantly). Therefore, if Tigraan is okay with it, I'll simply place my general views, clarifying that they should be read as neither a support or oppose. On the positive side for this author are the two extensive and very in-depth coverages of her career done by The Sunday Mail and Daily Record. These two should be enough to qualify her on BASIC. Beyond this, WP:AUTHOR mentions that an individual may be notable if "the person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Hamill has created a very well-known and well-covered book, and this alone again seems enough to qualify her as being notable. On the negative side, a few other coverage that I have found of her seem to be purely press releases (but then, I think that is expected during the book promotion stage). Notwithstanding my comments, I'll maintain my ambivalence to this article being kept or deleted. Lourdes  15:53, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I see nothing wrong with commenting on an article you edited, and I pinged you out of courtesy for the work you made. But I respect your opinion.
 * I do not think the book is "a well-known work" as required by WP:NAUTHOR, and I think the press coverage is WP:INHERITED from the book. Tigraan Click here to contact me 17:10, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete not enough coverage of Hamill to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:31, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KaisaL (talk) 02:21, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 6 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete neither book nor author have sufficient sourcing to pass WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:27, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment, , , I have added two newer references to the article (one from Kilburn Times, another from Record Collector, claimed to be one of UK's oldest music magazines). That makes six total number of unique references significantly covering Hamill (excluding two more in the same publication). Just for reference, the six references are as follows: Sunday Mail, Daily Record, Sabotage Times, Limeric Post, Kilburn Times and Record Collector. This is to allow you to review your !votes. As mentioned earlier, I would not take any particular stand here. Lourdes  13:24, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I still stand by my nomination, considering only the first two are really good in terms of coverage (the last one looks like very local news), and they cover the book more than the author. Thanks for the sources anyways, I will try to think about making an article on the book (if the author's gets deleted). Tigraan Click here to contact me 14:13, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, if you think an article on the book may be made, then the author qualifies automatically on notability per WP:AUTHOR #3, which notes that a BIO may be notable if "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." My personal opinion is that seven news reports noted in the article (none seem local to me, and all cover the book and the author well) on the book make it quite "well-known" (italics for emphasis with respect to notability guideline). Would you still wish to hold your position ? Thanks for taking time to reply. Appreciated on my part. Lourdes  02:30, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * , your argument is that if any book is notable its author is as well. I do not think so, and I think that "significant or well-known" of WP:AUTHOR is a higher threshold than any of WP:BKCRIT. But I have to admit there is nothing in the guidelines that supports that view. I have the gut feeling from my AfD experience that the majority here thinks the same way, but even if it is true (1) the AfD crowd is probably not representative of the WP editors' views as a whole and (2) that is an argumentum ad populum anyways.
 * As for author vs. book coverage, my personal test is "was the article written because a book by the author was launched or will shortly be?". It is usual for the editor to send the author get as much press coverage as they can get since the first few weeks are critical to the success of a book. Of course the articles always incorporate a bit of biography ("she lived in X for Y years and took great inspiration from her experiences for scene Z") but if the article is primarily about the book and timed around when it gets out (or is translated, or re-edited, or something like that) I dismiss it as passing coverage. Tigraan Click here to contact me 13:16, 9 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as there's still nothing for convincing independent notability. SwisterTwister   talk  07:49, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * , are you referring to GNG or AUTHOR? I'm not clear which guideline you are referring to. After I have added the required sources, this author passes WP:AUTHOR #3 per my detail above. The book that the author has written qualifies on Wikipedia's notability guidelines for books WP:BKCRIT #1. And consequently, WP:AUTHOR #3 applies here as per our notability guidelines. Lourdes  00:50, 10 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment, once again, thanks for the elucidating comment. If I may summarise your comment, what you are saying is as follows:
 * You accept the book is notable as per our guidelines.
 * You personally believe that WP:AUTHOR #3 (which mentions that an author may be notable if the book is well-known) does not apply here because, as per you, a book that may be notable as per our guidelines is not necessarily ""well known" (emphasis for guideline reference), as required by WP:AUTHOR #3. (Does the note I've added subsequently help? Lourdes  01:40, 10 July 2016 (UTC))
 * You also believe this interpretation of yours is not represented within the current guidelines.
 * You personally feel that the majority Afd !voters would accept your view.
 * You believe that mentioning that the majority may support you, is a fallacious argument.
 * You also believe that this majority Afd !voters' view may probably not represent the view of Wikipedia's overall editors.
 * You alternatively or in conjunction, therefore or otherwise, utilise a personal test to consider whether an author and a book are notable.
 * Please correct me if I have misinterpreted your view anywhere above. Lourdes  00:50, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * That is almost right (1) yes; it is not an obvious case, but I think the coverage is enough. (2) yes, that is the crucial point. (3) somewhat yes; "well-known" is unclear, and although I believe in the context ("significant or well-known"), it takes a stronger meaning that "notable", there is nothing in the guideline that says so. (4), (5) and (6) yes.
 * (7) Not at all! I go by GNG or NAUTHOR, but both exclude passing or inherited coverage. My "personal test" is a view on WP:INHERITED in the context of books, about how to know to which extent an article about an author falls under inherited coverage of a book. An interview with an author dealing with multiple books and asking personal questions like "what is your favorite country" is certainly coverage of the author, a review mentioning "the author wrote a novel about..." is coverage of the book with only passing mention of the author, but most reviews fall in-between.
 * Of course WP:INHERITED is a blurred line in such cases. Famous authors are famous because of their books and that is not "inherited notability", but I think "if the book is notable the author automatically is" is wrong.
 * Imagine for instance that I publish a book under the alias "Bourbaki 2" and it becomes a bestseller for multiple years, during which speculation abounds about the author's real identity to such a point that a WP article about the pseudonym is warranted. 10 years later, I reveal my identity but few newspapers cover the thing (even though the book itself is still well-known, maybe even studied in classes etc. the media interest has fallen). "Bourbaki 2" meets WP:NAUTHOR, but "Tigraan" does not (at best, it should be a redirect to Bourbaki 2).  Tigraan Click here to contact me 11:13, 11 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep With permission from Tigraan (as I had mentioned earlier I wouldn't like to !vote), with due respect to his nomination, and with due respect to the other !voters comments. All three !voters above have mentioned only GNG in their assessment criteria and do not seem to be considering WP:AUTHOR at all (the third refers simply to notability guideline, without clarifying). The nominator, by their own admission, has used a personal criteria and interpretation to assess whether the author and the book are notable or not. The BLP author, as mentioned above by me after adding multiple RS, may qualify on notability on subject-specific guidelines, specifically AUTHOR #3, as the book is a well-known work and the criteria #3 appreciates such authors (one reason the wiklink is titled AUTHOR). Lourdes  03:33, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You did not need my permission, and I promise not to get angry.  Tigraan Click here to contact me 11:13, 11 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep I'm in agreement that she falls within the plain language of WP:AUTHOR #3, and I'm wary about efforts to overrule the notability that "likely" confers. If you want to change the policy that's def a conversation one could have (I myself might be sympathetic to the case for saying one book shouldn't be enough, say, or raising the bar for how widely reviewed it is), but taking it upon oneself to apply a different standard to individual cases before any policy change has happened seems quite at odds with WP:NPOV, at risk of introducing WP:SYSTEMICBIAS, among other problems. Innisfree987 (talk) 21:29, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, as my interpretation of the guideline is disputed I am ready to withdraw (see below). This being said, I just want to mention that I did not intend to "take on myself" to overrule the guideline (and the gender, nationality, age or whatever of the author played no role in that). Tigraan Click here to contact me 11:25, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah yes this is important: I don't think this is a matter of bad intentions either. My concern is for inadvertently introducing a slant--I worry only that using discretion to depart from guideline to delete might wind up, unconsciously and perhaps imperceptibly, happening more to subjects of systemic bias than to others, despite best intentions (a concern I apply as much to myself as anyone else!) Thanks for opportunity to clarify, Tigraan. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:22, 11 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Note to closer: in view of this, I would like the AfD to be closed as keep NPASR, depending on what the clarification about the "well-known" close will give. (Of course, it may still be that the consensus is to keep with prejudice against speedy renomination.) Tigraan Click here to contact me 11:25, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * FWIW: WT:Notability_(people). Tigraan Click here to contact me 19:37, 11 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.