Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kate E. Reynolds


 * 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 delete. , if you would like me to reproduce the article into your userspace so you can keep working on bringing it up to the bar of WP:NAUTHOR, just let me know. I'd be more than happy to do so.  A  Train talk 08:35, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Kate E. Reynolds

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The subject appears to have received no significant coverage in third-party sources. Fails WP:NAUTHOR. Rentier (talk) 20:31, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

On what basis are AutismDaily / TES / WestInfo insignificant? ScratchMarshall (talk) 20:35, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The cited sources contain trivial mentions of the subject and are insufficient to establish the subject's biographical notability as an author. Rentier (talk) 20:41, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  M assiveYR   ♠  21:15, 28 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete:In two of those sources, the coverage of Reynolds is a sentence or a fraction thereof. The third, while using her book as the source for the article, is doing just that - using it as a source, rather than discussing the book, much less the author. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:20, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:27, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:27, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:27, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:39, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:39, 29 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete does not pass notability guidelines for writers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:38, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * User:ScratchMarshall, the relevant question that you need to focus on is not whether the publications are significant, but whether the particular coverage in them about Kate E. Reynolds is of significant extent. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:08, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kate_E._Reynolds&diff=803147040&oldid=802876602 a new source was just added from Library Journal which gave a positive review. This should be taken into considerstion. ScratchMarshall (talk) 20:29, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete sources to support notability are just not out there.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:34, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * what about
 * though? ScratchMarshall (talk) 18:44, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * For those without access to that source I can confirm that it is a review of a book by Reynolds running to about 200 words. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 11:18, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Which, at best, contributes one of the multiple reviews that WP:NAUTHOR calls for. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:59, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Which, at best, contributes one of the multiple reviews that WP:NAUTHOR calls for. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:59, 5 October 2017 (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.