Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julie Hecht


 * 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The result was Withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure) Joseph2302 (talk) 19:37, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Julie Hecht

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable person, fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO Joseph2302 (talk) 22:04, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - easily notable author. Simon & Schuster profile: "Julie Hecht’s fiction has appeared in The New Yorker and Harper’s, and her books have received spectacular reviews from The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Boston Globe, Time, and many other publications. All of the author’s books have been named New York Times Notable Books." I would assume Simon & Schuster is not fabricating this.  —Мандичка YO 😜 22:11, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't recommend keeping based on things posted in the publisher's page. The reason for this is because I've seen several instances where outlets have taken quotes out of context to make them appear like they're reviews. You see this more with independently published books and films, but it can happen sometimes with mainstream publishers as well. I remember one time I found an article where someone tried to quote a website that was just reprinting a press release. Basically, because there are companies and people who have abused the whole quote thing, we have to be able to verify the coverage. It's a moot point in this instance since I'm finding coverage for the author, but I wanted to write this. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  05:56, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:11, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:11, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. I've found quite a bit of coverage for her works, enough to where they would pass WP:NBOOK. I've compiled sources for the books in the bibliography section so if anyone is interested then they can feel free to create them. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  06:18, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I've created them. Offhand I can see where there aren't a whole lot of non-review articles out there about her- she's purposely refrained from doing interviews. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  10:13, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Notable Covered by a scholarly article, fairly major publications. It's a pity a volunteer didn't do this properly in the first place.  DGG ( talk ) 16:22, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep enough has been said. And although I do see that the page was not persuasive when User:Joseph2302 happened on it, he might now consider withdrawing this AFD so that overtaxed editors can focus on moot cases.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:33, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Withdrawn As long as people are willing to improve it, I'm happy to close this. Will do the official AfD close thing in a minute. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:35, 8 May 2015 (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.