Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/M. D. Benoit


 * 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. On merits, the fact that only one independent book review has been provided as independent sourcing is a serious notability concern, and the consensus is against keeping the article in article space. The option of userfying has been up, but it doesn't look like anyone is intending to work on the article. Feel free to ask me or another admin if you want to work on it. Sjakkalle (Check!)  11:02, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

M. D. Benoit

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not seem to meet WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 09:13, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:33, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:33, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 03:32, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Weak keep. There's a review for one of her books here . That appears to be an independent RS, and not a blog. Here's another one . This one is from a site that does an awful lot of reviews. It's got links to Amazon, but it appears to be pretty independent. This is not a promotional article, though it might have been written by a young fan. The content is dated and the writing needs help, but that can be fixed. WP:AUTHOR says a body of work with multiple, independent reviews (standard #3), and this is a start. When something is borderline, I prefer to keep, unless there is a compelling reason to delete. Dcs002 (talk) 07:02, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I've just added those reviews and moved things around a bit. I'd still like us to keep the article, but I admit, her established notability is very marginal as things stand. I hope some of the people who know more about authors and books can chime in and maybe give some ideas for sourcing. If trends are moving toward these small publishers and reviews through blogs, we're eventually going to have to deal with that in WP:AUTHOR. Dcs002 (talk) 08:21, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You're right that with more and more publications becoming exclusively online, we are eventually going to have to revisit what counts as a reliable source for the purposes of WP:AUTHOR — I find it incredibly hard, most of the time, to actually start a new article about a writer anymore for exactly that reason. But generally if you're depending on one book review in a blog as evidence of notability, the biggest problem isn't actually the "blog" part, but the "one book review" part. All books get reviewed somewhere, but that doesn't make all writers automatically notable enough for our purposes. Bearcat (talk) 01:45, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Just to clarify, I have found two reviews, and neither is a blog or a "customer review", like the JC_Hall epinions review in the External links section appears to be. (She and her books are all over the blogosphere. I just ignored that coverage, but there is a LOT of it.) If significant coverage in multiple, independent sources means two or more sources, I think this qualifies - barely. (It is significant coverage in independent sources per WP:GNG, but only the two RS. For me, that's enough to satisfy "multiple" sources.) But if you disagree, what would you think of draftifying the article so we don't lose the content we already have? I think this author has at least a cult following right now (lots of high profile blogger interviews and all reviews positive so far), and I think it won't be long before her notability is clearer. Dcs002 (talk)


 * Not enough reliable sourcing here to properly support an article yet. No prejudice against recreation in the future if and when more sources can be added, but right now it's a delete. Bearcat (talk) 01:45, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Userfy — per Dcs002's argument. Might be a case of WP:TOOSOON.--180.172.239.231 (talk) 14:51, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Question To who's userspace should we userfy the article? It was created by Cherylaswanson, an editor who no longer seems to be with us (not since 2007). She did more editing than anyone else. I did what I consider sourcing appropriate for any AfD discussion plus some minor cleanup, but I'm not comfortable having it in my userspace, where I would be responsible for it. Wouldn't moving it to a draft accomplish the same goal? (Would it then also be searchable?) Dcs002 (talk) 02:58, 21 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete. Possible WP:TOOSOON. Harrison2014 (talk) 17:14, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment After nineteen days, so far we have one Delete (the nom), one weak Keep, one Userfy, and one weak Delete - four !votes. Maybe it's time to close this as a No Consensus and see if anything changes in the time to come, or whether a new relisting at some future time might generate some different views about the new sources. In any case, this discussion has gone stagnant for nine days. Dcs002 (talk) 00:05, 30 August 2014 (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.