Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marissa Lingen


 * 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. WP:SNOW keep (non-admin closure) NemesisAT (talk) 14:04, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Marissa Lingen

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

I may very well be missing something major here but I can't find any meaningful coverage of her or her work - just that "hey she was published in xyz" and most of the publications are self published/fansites/blogs. I don't see coverage in any of the normal, major critical outlets and aside from the Asimov award, which I'm not sure if on it's own confers notability, there simply isn't much to substantiate an article. There are plenty of hits for her name as publisher but not much or any in the way of reliable coverage of her. PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:37, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Science fiction and fantasy,  and Illinois.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:40, 12 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. This article should never have been brought up for an AfD (although, yes, the article needs a major cleanup but that's a topic outside the scope of an AfD). Marissa Lingen hasn't merely been published in "self published/fansites/blogs" as stated above. Instead, more than a hundred of her short stories have been published in all of the SF/F genre's top magazines, including Analog Science Fiction and Fact, Tor.com, Lightspeed, Nature, Apex Magazine, Uncanny Magazine, Beneath Ceaseless Skies, Clarkesworld Magazine, The Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction, and many many more, along with being reprinted in various Year's Best Stories anthologies. Her fiction has also been reviewed in Locus Magazine countless times (one example here but there are many more), SFF Reviews, Analog Science Fiction and Fact (can't link to reviews b/c not online), Amazing Stories (see this one review but there are others, Tangent Online (see this one review, there are many others), and a number of other places. There are also a number of interviews with the subject in genre magazines and mentions of her work in other media such as Book Riot and Locus. As stated at Notability (people), "multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." That is certainly the case here, with the large number of reviews and coverage of this author proving notability.--SouthernNights (talk) 22:03, 12 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. I agree with southernnights, "This article should never have been brought up for an AfD". Multiple independent reviews, multiple magazines, etc. The bibliography section is a bit bloated, but I think an edit or two is much preferred to article deletion.Twopower332.1938 (talk) 23:54, 12 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. I agree with southernnights. and others Well-known and clearly notable young author. Yes, the article could be improved.... --Pete Tillman (talk) 00:46, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep finding biographical articles on the person is not easy - I found none in books and newspapers etc. It is however easy to find reference in newsprint for her work or interviews about her work. But this is a biography, and we cannot base a biography of the person on interviews, we need fact checking. Lightburst (talk) 02:07, 13 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep - this article (Marissa Lingen) should stay, but with the bibliography in a separate article at Marissa Lingen bibliography, as per guidelines at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Bibliographies#Author_bibliographies Sunwin1960 (talk) 04:17, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep: clearly notable author. No strong view as to whether the bibliography should be in this article or split off (it is currently duplicated, with an AfD for Marissa Lingen bibliography): the bibliography should remain in the encyclopedia, somewhere, but should not be duplicated. Pam  D  08:25, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree. I moved the bibliography into its own article, but another editor has copied it back into the main author article, presumably pending the outcome of the AfD process for both articles. Sunwin1960 (talk) 08:50, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Reviews establish that WP:NAUTHOR is met. MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:36, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep as meets WP:NAUTHOR. The article certainly needs significant cleanup, but WP:DINC. -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:36, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - While the article needs improving, the subject's notability has nonetheless been shown through sources in the article. Meets WP:GNG and passes WP:BASIC. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 04:27, 16 July 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.