Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lucy Saunders


 * 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   keep. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 23:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Lucy Saunders

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Doesn't meet WP:AUTHOR. Reads like a promotional CV.  SilkTork  *YES! 12:22, 18 July 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:45, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Fails WP:BIO, WP:AUTHOR, WP:NOTHOST, and WP:NOTLINKEDIN. —Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 13:52, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - The current article is dreadful, but the subject does appear to be notable. she is interviewed by the Atlanta Journal Constitution, and featured in the Fort Worth Star Telegram.  There are more articles in Google News that review her books but are behind pay walls.  -- Whpq (talk) 20:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep - As per Whpq's reasons, she appears to have a good number of citations in third-party articles on the subject from relatively notable sources (primary newspapers of major US metro areas). Zachlipton (talk) 00:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I post here the contents of WP:AUTHOR for those not familiar with the guideline:


 * ''Creative professionals
 * ''Scientists, academics, economists, professors, authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, engineers, and other creative professionals:


 * ''1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors.
 * ''2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
 * ''3. The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
 * ''4. The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums, or had works in many significant libraries.
 * 5. See Wikipedia:Notability (academics) for guidelines on academics


 * The guideline was developed to help us differentiate between those writers who are genuinely notable from the many thousands who simply make their living from writing (and, as such, get published and promoted). The less notable writers tend to create their own entries on Wikipedia as that helps promote them. This is the second time that an entry on this writer has been created by a short term account. From looking at the article, at the refs, and at this person's work, it is clear they are simply a jobbing writer, and an article on Wikipedia is more worthwhile to the writer than it is to the general public.  SilkTork  *YES! 23:21, 31 July 2009 (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.