Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laura Lam


 * 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   no consensus. Nakon 02:55, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Laura Lam

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Don't believe that this author meets WP:AUTHOR or GNG. Article lacks WP:RS Gbawden (talk) 06:50, 4 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Note There is another Laura Lam who writes on Vietnam. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:15, 4 February 2015 (UTC).


 * Delete I would call this a case of slightly WP:TOOSOON. Found one source (other than book reviews) of her being signed to a publisher, yet a book would not be published by 2016. As of now, the article is suffering from lack of a claim of importance (i.e. what's special about her beyond being a writer and published some books), probably deletable by WP:A7. I would ask for no prejudice of recreation when her career really takes off.  野狼院ひさし  u/t/c 11:02, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 4 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete I would agree with the assessment that this article is slightly WP:TOOSOON. Her novel "Pantomime" did get publisher and is stocked in almost 300 libraries see World cat. She did get a "Teens book of the month" listing from the Scottish Book Trust . She made an appearance at the 2014 Inverness Book Festival which led to a mention of her name on the BBC News website. She also had a passing mention in a Guardian article about the best LGBT books for children, teenagers and young adults. She hasn't yet had the depth of coverage needed for WP:AUTHOR. Drchriswilliams (talk) 14:32, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Lam has won a number of awards, her works are seen as important in bringing intersex characters into the YA genre, she is noted enough to be a guest speaker at 2014 Worldcon. She is anthologised in Solaris Rising 3, she does book signings at Forbidden Planet. Her books are regularly listed by other authors Emma Carroll, Cindy Pon.  All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:55, 5 February 2015 (UTC).

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * You say "won a number of awards" but I cannot see any information to support this claim. Her book "Pantomime" has been selected on a number of promotional reading lists, including some that are specifically aimed at increasing awareness amongst teenagers. The only award I can see that she has received is from GLAAD, a lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) media advocacy organization in the US; she picked up one of the 8 awards at their second Bisexual Book Awards, which had 60 books submitted to them. When you say "her books are regularly listed by other authors" this also doesn't seem to accurately reflect things. Of the two examples you quote: one author (promoting her own book) names "Pantomime" in her "top 10 children's books about the circus" and the second example is an interview with Young Adult fantasy author Cindy Pon, who when interviewed name-checked "Pantomime" part of a list of books that she was asked to recommend. Drchriswilliams (talk) 18:46, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd have to agree that at this particular juncture, this is just a bit WP:TOOSOON. For a rarefied elite class of literary awards (e.g. the Pulitzer, the Booker, the Governor General's), a nomination is sufficient to demonstrate notability in and of itself, because those awards and their nominees get actively and extensively covered in gold-standard national news sources like the BBC or The New York Times — but for many genre or specialty awards which generate much more limited media coverage, such as the Bisexual Book Awards or the British Fantasy Society, even a win might not be enough in and of itself if the reliable sourcing ain't there to cover it. The quality of sourcing here, further, is very poor, relying almost entirely on primary and unreliable sources like WordPress blogs, examiner.com, BuzzFeed and the websites of the award organizations themselves — so the sourcing is not solid, reliable or independent enough to claim that she gets over WP:AUTHOR for the awards, or that she's garnered enough media coverage to pass WP:GNG instead of WP:AUTHOR. It's important to understand that a deletion result right now does not mean that she can never have an article — lots of people have flunked an AFD at one particular point in time, but then later became eligible for a new article again because their basic notability claim, and/or the availability of reliable sourcing, had substantively improved in the intervening time. So this doesn't mean "never" — it just means "not yet". Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future when she can be sourced better than this (and no objection to sandboxing in draft or userspace.) Bearcat (talk) 00:07, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 16:47, 13 February 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ⨹   13:21, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. There's just barely enough here to warrant a keep in this instance, although it is a very close call and I can understand if the closing admin thinks that the consensus is to delete. What kind of pushes it for me is that she has been on the ALA list, has received a review from the Scottish Book Trust (along with being one of a book of the month), and she's received reviews from Booklist, MuggleNet, and from the British Fantasy Society (along with a nomination). That's just enough to where she could probably squeak by notability guidelines with the closest of shaves, although I generally prefer to have more stronger sourcing than this for articles. I also found a review by a publication named Vada Magazine and I'm not entirely sure if that's usable or not- they have a set amount of contributors and an editorial team (a fairly large one, actually) so that does make it a little more reliable than others. That it's written by one of the editors of the site does give it a little more legitimacy than others, though. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   04:43, 21 February 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.