Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marie Chapian


 * 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. Star  Mississippi  16:22, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Marie Chapian

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

Fails WP:NAUTHOR, WP:SIGCOV. No coverage. Been on the cat:nn list for 10 years+. BLP that has never been referenced.  scope_creep Talk  10:57, 30 April 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   16:17, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Poetry, Christianity,  and California.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:16, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I did some digging around and learned that she publishes as Marie Chapian, Marie Jordan, and Maria Giordano. The later two names are common enough that sourcing is a challenge. I am unsure about notability as a number of books are co-authored with her as second author and the newspaper articles focus on the lead author (e.g., Cathleen Mae Webb,Gary Dotson,Gavin MacLeod.   DaffodilOcean (talk) 13:28, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. I feel she meets WP:AUTHOR based on reviews of her books; the reviews are now in the article. I did reduce the long list of publications to focus on those that have received attention from others. However, while her work has been reviewed in multiple publications, I find little about Chapian/Giordano/Jordan herself. DaffodilOcean (talk) 11:18, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep as the article has been significantly improved since nomination including the addition of references to multiple reviews of her books including the New York Times, Star Tribune, Publishers Weekly and others so that WP:NAUTHOR criteria 4 (c) is passed, in my view Atlantic306 (talk) 12:59, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Weak Keep My analysis is the same as User:DaffodilOcean's - there's not much to form an article here, it's entirely focussed on her writing, which doesn't get a lot of attention, but I think it is enough to satisfy WP:AUTHOR CT55555 (talk) 16:47, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree that it seems to have been improved. I think it is just enough to satisfy WP:AUTHOR. Pazguillermo (talk) 18:33, 7 May 2022 (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.