Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lora Leigh


 * 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. No clear agreement, but it does appear the writer made the NYT bestseller list, so while neither position gained clear traction here, it seems appropriate to apply the usual default to keep. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  16:22, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Lora Leigh

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Claims to be a best-selling NYT author, which I can not authenticate; gives no references; I am unable to establish general notability. St John Chrysostom ΔόξατωΘεώ 20:33, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm going to see what I can do, but I want to take this opportunity to once again draw attention to my suspicion that someone from Macmillan Publishing is paying someone to add articles on their authors to Wikipedia. If one checks out their website, they'll see that recently they've been adding links to Wikipedia entries for their authors, many of which have suddenly started getting entries on here. This was something I noticed quite recently when an article for the author Charles Brokaw came up for deletion. (See Articles for deletion/Charles Brokaw.) Nothing was done about it at that point, but I highly, highly recommend that an admin look into this. I have a very sneaking suspicion that there's been some very promotional adding here on Wikipedia.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 14:17, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I second this, as I've come across an entire spate of poorly sourced non-notable author pages and promotional pages very recently, enough that it's taken me in to the uncharted realms of BLP-patrol, something I've tried to avoid in the past for obvious reasons (i.e. Youreallycan). St John Chrysostom ΔόξατωΘεώ 03:27, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I also want to add that listing an author's books is NOT self-promotion or promotion in any format. If you look at entries for authors such as Stephen King, Laurell K Hamilton, or any number of noteworthy authors, you'll see that they have their bibliographies posted. Lists like that are appropriate for Wikipedia entries, so I'm going to re-add it.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 14:20, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * IMO, when it's a notable author and restricted to books that have their own pages or notable series (such as Stephen King's Dark Tower), it's not - but the entirety of the article, literally more than 90% of the text, is a list of non-notable books. Indeed, some people, in contravention of WP:NOTABILITY, believe that an author's notability rubs off on all of their works; except for a very, very few (Stephen King, JRR Tolkien, JK Rowling, Stephanie Meyer, etc. etc.) who have become true celebrities in their own right, it's not the case. St John Chrysostom ΔόξατωΘεώ 03:25, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Neutral/Delete. I'm torn between neutral and delete, as I've found sources but not anything that I'd consider meaty enough to be notable beyond a reasonable doubt. She's won an award, but not anything that I'd consider to show notability. There's book reviews, but nothing so exhausting that I'd say it shows lasting notability for her work. I'm rather torn about this. This is pretty much a good example of a popular author that's someone who is known and sells insanely well, but doesn't fit Wikipedia's notability criteria for authors.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 14:51, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  — Frankie (talk) 18:17, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.  — Frankie (talk) 18:17, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Keep I've added some more references. If negative views and opinions are included, this needn't be a promotional article.  Add in the NYT bestseller status and the wide coverage in other websites (not all 100% reliable), and she's clearly one of the top writers in her field. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:29, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:15, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep The new york times best seller status is irrefutable proof of notability. Ths list of books is appropriate--what other information would be more important in an article on an author, to the extent that if not present, the article is woefully incomplete, and the information must be added. .  DGG ( talk ) 01:56, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete At the moment - The NYT source is a good one, but multiple instances of significant coverage are required for WP:GNG. I don't think the other sources (in terms of those appropriate for examining for the purposes of notability) offer significant coverage. However, one more source like the NYT one should be enough. isfutile:P (talk) 17:17, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * not so. One very strong source is enough, and it isn't the article in the NYT in any case, it's the verified inclusion in the list of NYT bestsellers, which fact is enough for notability .  DGG ( talk ) 00:49, 12 May 2012 (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.