Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary Miller (writer)


 * 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   no consensus. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica1000 04:56, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Mary Miller (writer)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Okay originally I had this as a prod but just noticed this Tumblr link on here. This sounds like she might be pretty important, but so far just 2 stories and no links to either. I think a userfy might be the best. Though from what I can tell she is pretty young, so it might be too soon also. (she does sound impressive from just one line though) Wgolf (talk) 21:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 29 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, j⚛e deckertalk 17:42, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

 Authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, and other creative professionals:
 * Delete - She will have time to be notable in the future. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 21:24, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete She doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR:

''The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. 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. The person's work (or works) 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.''

Sounds like she is doing well for herself, but that doesn't translate to notability (yet). Boleyn (talk) 07:59, 6 September 2014 (UTC) 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  22:48, 12 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep although previous article was seriously wanting in terms of text, references, so hopefully it is upgraded as per WP:HEYMANN. Her debut novel was well received, winning plaudits from major newspapers and garnering sufficient critical attention to establish her as a major writer. Sources include Publishers Weekly, NY Times, Chicago Tribune, NPR listing, Wall Street Journal, NY Times Editors' choice, LA Times, even Oprah Book Club, Star-Tribune, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, adding up to easily meeting WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:47, 12 September 2014 (UTC) And she also meets the WP:AUTHOR on point 4 letter (c) which says "The person's work ... (c) has won significant critical attention".---Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:23, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per the persuasive arguments and citations provided by Tom. Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 21:40, 15 September 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.