Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lee Ann Sontheimer Murphy


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 00:10, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Lee Ann Sontheimer Murphy

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I'm filing this AfD administratively for an IP, whose rationale was given to me as: "Subject not notable according to Wikipedia criteria; lacks multiple secondary and tertiary sources, inclusion in Marquis' "Who's Who..." books unreliable, subject is not widely cited by other authors in her genre, Evernight Publishing has no entry in Wikipedia, recent digital book by author (Home Fires of Christmas) only ranks #483,928 on Amazon Kindle Store, subject does not contribute to major news agency or publication, Subject was affiliated with The Joplin Globe (only 30,000 Sunday circulation according to Wikipedia) and is currently affiliated with the Neosho Daily News, which she cites as a reference."

(I'm to be considered neutral for now, my action here is procedural.) j⚛e deckertalk 20:45, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

NOTE: I am Lee Ann Sontheimer Murphy. I have twenty-seven published works of fiction with four publishers (Champagne Books, Rebel Ink Press, Evernight Publishing and Astraea Press). I am a member of Romance Writers of America, Missouri Writers Guild, and the Ozark Writers League. In addition to my own titles, through 2012, with seven more upcoming in 2013, I feel there is every valid reason to NOT delete my Wikipedia entry. A google search of my name reveals thousands of pages in multiple languages. I also own and operate four ongoing blogs and in 2013 have been named as part of the top authors at Rebel Ink Press, the Rebel Elite team. The Joplin Globe - if you checked their stats, not Wikipedias - has extensive circulation in four states.

I personally feel the request to remove this entry is an act of jealousy and personal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lee Ann Sontheimer Murphy (talk • contribs) 23:29, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well... the issue is whether or not you've received coverage in sources that Wikipedia feels are reliable and shows notability. I haven't done a search yet, so I can't really state if you meet it one way or another. All I can say is that publishing a lot of books in multiple languages doesn't guarantee notability. It makes it more likely, but it doesn't guarantee it. I know, I know. It seems backwards and at times I get incredibly frustrated because I've had to watch pages on big name authors get deleted because they lacked RS to show notability per Wikipedia's notability guidelines. These are people who routinely get on the New York Times bestselling mass market lists, but don't get the coverage needed for their own article. I can't guarantee that the IP that nominated the page did so out of a malicious intent, but it's best to assume good faith. As far as publishing with notable houses go, that doesn't mean anything. Notability isn't inherited by publishing through big name houses. It just makes it more likely that you'd get that coverage. I'll see what I can do, but I'll recommend that right now saying that this is a personal attack against you isn't always a good way to argue your case. It puts a lot of people on the defensive. (WP:RS, WP:AUTHOR, WP:NOTINHERITED, WP:PERSONAL) If I feel that you pass notability guidelines I'll fight for this page to the very end, but if you don't then there's really not much that can be done about it. I'm optimistic that I'll find stuff, but I want to stress that there is a chance that you won't pass notability guidelines. It was hard enough for people to argue for notability for authors such as Lora Leigh, who is not only a NYT bestselling author but also one that has published through Berkley and has put out a ton of work.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   06:46, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Ms. Sontheimer Murphy, just because I do not believe that you deserve your own entry on Wikipedia doesn't mean I have some sort of vendetta against you. In fact, I had never even heard of you until recently when I was researching Hermann Jaeger and saw your name below his in the Neosho, Missouri entry.  Of the four publishers you listed, all four are small, independent publishers and Epublishers.  According to http://www.rwa.org/p/cm/ld/fid=521, "All individuals who have attained the age of 18 and who agree to accept the purposes of RWA and to faithfully observe and be bound by the Bylaws of RWA [and pay $10-$95] shall be eligible to apply for membership."  Inclusion in the Missouri Writer's Guild is more noteworthy, but if Wikipedia went by their criteria (http://www.missouriwritersguild.org/mwg_membership.shtml), it would be overrun with authors.  The Ozark Writer's League only asks for $20.00 and a 35-word bio.  Finally, on the topic of blogs, Verifiability says that "Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources."  I really can't say fairer than that. 69.151.66.141 (talk) 07:28, 14 January 2013 (UTC)69.151.66.141


 * Delete. I'm a bit disappointed that I wasn't able to save this entry, but here are my reasons why:
 * First off, there are a lack of reviews from places that Wikipedia would consider reliable sources. I went through about 30 pages of a Google search and all of the reviews I found were through review blogs. Blogs are almost always considered unusable as sources that show notability. The only exception is if you have someone writing a blog that's considered to be an absolute authority. Most bloggers aren't. An example of a reviewer that would be considered an absolute authority would be someone along the lines of the editor in chief of say, the New York Times, or a college professor that's routinely quoted as being the top person in their field of study in several reputable sources. This usually means that the blogger is someone notable by Wikipedia's guidelines. Not always, but usually in my experiences.
 * There is no in-depth coverage of Sontheimer Murphy in news sources. The only source we have in the article or in general is a news article by the paper that she writes for. For many, this would make it a WP:PRIMARY source even if it was published before she began writing it for the paper. Even if we don't count it as such, one source isn't enough in this instance to show notability. It's very rare that one or two sources shows that someone passes notability guidelines. It can happen, but it's incredibly rare. The other coverage is predominantly in blogs and in sources that can't be used as reliable sources to show notability. Wikipedia is very specific in what it can use and what it can't.
 * As far as writing for various sites go, this in and of itself doesn't give notability. You have to show that the author's blog and news posts have been extensively commented upon by reliable sources. As above, this hasn't been commented upon by any reliable sources. Any commentary by the places that publish her work is considered a primary source.
 * Now when it comes to being a member of various organizations or publishing with a specific house, this doesn't guarantee notability. Notability isn't inherited by publishing with or being a member of various organizations. It might make it more likely, but it doesn't in itself guarantee notability. Now when it comes to being part of the governing body of an organization, this doesn't guarantee notability either. Like the one source rule, it's rare that being part of the governing body of these types of organizations will give you notability. Being the president of a local writing group isn't the type of thing that gives that level of notability. This isn't a slight against being part of these groups, just that notability guidelines are very strict.
 * Finally, I was unable to show where Sontheimer Murphy is seen as a notable writer within her genre or has started a new line of writing. She's published a lot, but this in and of itself isn't guaranteed to give notability. It used to be enough, but not really enough by today's guidelines.
 * In the end, there just isn't enough at this time to show that she passes notability guidelines. Please don't take this personally. Like I said, it's really hard to show notability for even the big name authors that have published far more over the years than you have. Everything really boils down to coverage in reliable sources and you just haven't received this yet. I understand that it's really hard for indie authors to get this coverage, but it's essentially what we need for someone to pass notability guidelines per WP:AUTHOR.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   07:32, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 23:17, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 23:17, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - There is some local coverage, but that is insufficient to establish inclusion in Wikipedia. -- Whpq (talk) 18:05, 17 January 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.