Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melissa Schroeder


 * 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.  Sandstein  12:42, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Melissa Schroeder

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

A prolific, but non-notable author. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:34, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. I couldn't find any sources, and I can't see any other reason she would pass WP:BIO. There are a lot of Google hits for her name, though, so there's always the chance that I may have missed something. If anyone finds suitable references I could be persuaded to change my mind. —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 18:54, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm unsure what other references you need. Would listing the places she is published help? PABray 12:56, 30 April 2012 (MST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PABray (talk • contribs)
 * Not really. The sources we are looking for need to be something that discusses her life or her work in general, and they need to be of a fairly decent length. Definitely a paragraph, preferably more, and ideally more than one source. They also shouldn't be written by anyone connected to her in any way. Finally, they should generally be regarded as reliable - they should have a reputation for fact-checking, and preferably they should have some sort of editorial review process. Have a look at Notability and Identifying reliable sources for background reading on this. Best —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 19:28, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

By definition of reliable source listing of the publishers falls into that category. There are also interviews now listed as references. As to the original reason for deletion an author how has published 46 books and has worked with 7 publishers to me is notable. PABray (talk) 20:04, 30 April 2012 (UTC)PABray
 * Comment The listing of the publishers indicate that Schroeder has been published, and as a verification of that fact, the source is reliable. However, such a listing does not indicate that the author is notable, for which there are specific guidelines, among which one does not find prolificacy.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:09, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

And from what I can tell the guidelines are pulled out when someone feels like it. Take for instance the wiki pages for Chloe Lang, Kris Cook, Carly Phillips and who knows how many others, I do not see the difference in these pages and the one for Melissa Schroeder. It seems personal opinion is used in deciding things more than anything else. You decided it wasn't notable to you so you want it deleted. PABray (talk) 20:45, 30 April 2012 (UTC)PABray NO ONE in my time had ever read every article in an Encyclopedia! And an online Encyclopedia should not be treated any differently than one in print. It provides people with information on people, places, and things that are RELEVANT! Not relevant to the reader who is judging, but to everyone! I feel that for someone who has not even read a classic artist as Charles Dickens, you are definitely not one to judge any type of art! It seems like you would watch a movie first, no offense. Because I am sure you have watch a Christmas Carol before. But it bothers me that if I Wikipedia wants to put themselves out there as a reliable source of information, they can not allow people to have PERSONAL feelings put into deletions. For example, if I believed that all basketball players were useless. I can request a deletion. It would be all based on me not liking the sport. Melissa Schroeder has been published and continues to write for her fans! You said it yourself you can find her when you Google her, and I am sure you can find links to all her published novels. Society has changed from the past with e-readers and ebooks can be done. She keeps up on those as well. I don't know what your sources are, but they surely need to be updated! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ToshyBell2010 (talk • contribs) 22:10, 30 April 2012 (UTC) — ToshyBell2010 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment The existence of other poor articles on Wikipedia is not a valid argument for keeping this bad article. I have nominated this article based on my interpretation of the Wikipedia guidelines and the existing sources.  If others disagree with my interpretation of the guidelines or the facts in evidence, then they can disagree with me, and the consensus may be reached that the article should be kept.  I have no personal opinion about Schroeder at all: I have never heard of her nor have I ever read any of her works.  I've never read any of Charles Dickens' works either, and would very likely despise any that I did read (that's just not my favored style of literature), but I can recognize his notability without having read him.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:51, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment I am not judging the quality of Schroeder's work, only her notability.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 03:32, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep There is enough published work here to establish a level of notability. The actual biography should be expanded and better sources provided. Stormbay (talk) 14:56, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment By "published work" do you mean the quantity of the author's output, or the quantity of sources relating to the author? If the former -- mere prolificacy cannot be the measure of notability.  If the latter -- the only hint of a source that indicates notability is the reference to the 2005 list of best selling e-books.  But since e-books were such a small part of the publishing industry in 2005, having a best-selling e-book didn't really mean that one was a best-selling author.  Other hints include finalist listings in some relatively minor awards.  Nothing that meets the criteria of WP:AUTHOR.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:52, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment RT Book Reviews (a print magazine and website spin-off of Romantic Times) is the best source for women's erotic/romance literature. They seem to have quite a few reviews of her work. There are some additional reviews in more bloggy sources (Dear Author, Romancing the Book, Joyfully Reviewed, Guilty Pleasures, Romance Novel News).  --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:04, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment I agree completely with Colapeninsula. Woman's fiction has a wide community and RT Book Reviews (a print magazine and website spin-off of Romantic Times) is the reliable place for readers to get information on the best in the field. My hope is that Wikipedia gate keepers do not resort to Gender Bias.Rls1962 (talk) 15.44, 8 May 2012 (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.