Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/L. Sue Baugh


 * 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. Secret account 04:05, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

L. Sue Baugh

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Promotional article for author of a recent self-published book, which has exactly 4 library holdings on WorldCat, a year after publication. Her earlier work consists of some rather widely held but perfectly routine very elementary textbooks.  DGG ( talk ) 03:36, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 30 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep I'd like clarification of exactly how obscure an author has to be in order to be disqualified form having a Wikipedia entry. By your admission, her previous work is widely published.  Do we now hold nonfiction how-to authors in lower esteem because they're not writing great literature??  Is that the criterion to be used -- great literature, or nothing?  That's rather elitist.  She's widely published, even if she isn't a New York Times bestseller.  And there's no problem with the citations.Mrtraska (talk) 23:10, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The general requirements are at WP:GNG; specific criteria for authors are at WP:AUTHOR. Dricherby (talk) 00:20, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * If her earlier work is important, then the article should be about it, not her later endeavors. In particular, a self published book in essentially no libraries is not even worth mentioning. DGG ( talk ) 05:24, 3 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:16, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 05:09, 14 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete A local review or two about a self-published book seems to be the crux of the notability claim here, which doesn't cut it. OhNo itsJamie Talk 06:13, 14 July 2013 (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.