Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mags L. Halliday


 * 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 merge to History 101 (novel). Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:25, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Mags L. Halliday

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

No evidence of significant coverage in secondary sources. The article has seven references, of which two are dead links, two are Google Books pages for books the subject has written, and three are links to self-published sources about the books the subject has written. OliveYouBean (talk) 11:20, 17 January 2023 (UTC) Relisting comment: Relisting because although there seems to be a consensus to Merge this article to History 101 (novel), that article is also nominated for a deletion discussion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 15:52, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Science fiction and fantasy,  and United Kingdom.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:58, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:AUTHOR. Mooonswimmer 14:40, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete No reviews of her books found, she also appears to write for the New Statesman. Only listings are Dr. Who fansites and various sales sites offering her books for sale. Nothing for GNG we can use. Oaktree b (talk) 15:40, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Oaktree b Just a note that two good reviews (as in, reliable) were found for H101, see the relevant AfD (in progress). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 14:20, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment - the first result on GScholar is a book review for History 101 (also recently nominated for deletion), and a scholarly work citing her writing (the second result on GScholar) is available in full on : "The Girls Who Waited? Female Companions and Gender in Doctor Who", Jowett, Lorna. Critical Studies in Television; London Vol. 9, Iss. 1, (Spring 2014): 77-94. Beccaynr (talk) 19:03, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The first source is definitely significant coverage of the book (though I can't find another similarly useful source, so I think the book still probably fails WP:NBOOK) but I don't think it can be used to support notability for Halliday. I can't personally access the second source so I can't speak to it, but it's only one source and multiple would be needed. OliveYouBean (talk) 01:59, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The second source is not much - there is a mention at the end of a paragraph of analysis: "Mags L. Halliday concludes, 'The problem is that smart, independent women don't make good companions, and that's a painful realization. I don't like the idea that my favourite series has, as a fundamental part of its set-up, no room for the kind of women I want to see'." which cites Mags. L Halliday, 'Seven to Doomsday: The Non-Domestication of Earthbound Doctor Who in Season Seven', in Deborah Stanish and L. M. Myles (eds), Chicks Unravel Time: Women Journey Through Every Season on Doctor Who, Mad Norwegian Press, 2012, p. 208. Beccaynr (talk) 03:24, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge to History 101 (novel), her book which seems notable. It's interesting case of an author that doesn't seem notable, yet penned at least one notable work. Well, WP:NOTINHERITED, she can have a Wikidata entry, and here I'd suggest merge and redirect (the article about her book can have a small section about the author's bio). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 14:18, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge to History 101 (novel) per  - this author writes under a pen name, and has a similar name to another writer of Who literature, so a small author bio appears helpful for the reader in the book article, which is supported by two reliable in-depth reviews. Beccaynr (talk) 16:01, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge as suggested above. I do not think there is enough for a standalone article, but some info on the novel's page is desirable. Dunarc (talk) 21:58, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge seems to be the best thing to do here. Serratra (talk) 15:26, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep satisfied AUTHOR per the two book reviews mentioned above. I have corrected my !vote above. Oaktree b (talk) 21:26, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not opposed to a merge either (as described above) if that helps the editor closing this debate later on. Oaktree b (talk) 21:27, 24 January 2023 (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.