Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Lawrence (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 keep. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience t 01:16, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Michael Lawrence (writer)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I am unsure whether the page should be deleted, and I would like to see it discussed. It seems to me to lack evidence of the subject's notability: I have tried looking for better sources. The best I can find is http://youngdracula.wikia.com/wiki/Young_Dracula:_AND_Young_Monsters, which does assert his notability, but I don't know how Wikipedia regards other Wiki sites. Maproom (talk) 09:22, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The first citation (of the subject's publisher's web site) does not mention him.
 * The second is to his own web site.
 * The third, to a reputable independent source, is a one-line description of one of his books.
 * The fourth is behind a paywall.
 * Other wiki's are not normally counted as reliable sources but may be used to locate them. See; WP:Reliable_source_examples. wintonian   talk  17:44, 8 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. It took me a while, but I found some sources. For some reason these didn't want to come up under his name, which was frustrating. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  11:49, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Could you provide us with these new sources so we can a, assess them ouselves; b, include them in the article if appropriate? wintonian   talk  17:30, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * These sources are the reviews in the article. Book reviews have always been acceptable as proof of notability for authors per WP:NAUTHOR and media outlets like the School Library Journal (around since 1954), Horn Book Guide (1924), and Booklist (the last is the official publication of the American Library Association) are considered to be reliable. All three (especially the Horn Book Guide) are considered to be extremely well thought of and very influential in the book world. On top of that we also have reviews from peer-reviewed academic journals like School Librarian and reviews from MuggleNet, which started out as a fan website but has since turned into a respected website that is considered to be a reliable source. (IE, they don't accept reviews from just anyone and the site does have an editorial process.) Kliatt is also considered to be a reliable source, as when they were still circulating (the magazine has since stopped publication) they were fairly well thought of. Now the thing about authors is that you don't have to show that one specific book is notable - you can establish notability for an author by showing how their work has received coverage (ie, reviews) over a larger period of time. This is far easier to do with an author's comprehensive work than it is with individual books or series, which is the case here - although I will note that there are enough reviews to where I could justify someone creating a series page for either the Jiggy McCue or the Withern Rise series. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  04:49, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

*Delete, and with a heavy heart, but from my investigations I just don't see how it comes close to meeting the WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR. To C&P what I have said on talk elsewhere:
 * The only mention I could find in the media was an article in the local rag about the planned closure of the local library in which he is interviewed as part of the campaign to save it, sadly there are many such campaigns currently up and down the country making this hardly unusual. wintonian  talk  17:24, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The only mention I could find in the media was an article in the local rag about the planned closure of the local library in which he is interviewed as part of the campaign to save it, sadly there are many such campaigns currently up and down the country making this hardly unusual. wintonian  talk  17:24, 8 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Snow keep I'm please we have cleared this one up positively. Thanks ought to go to Tokyogirl79 for uncovering what seems to be beyond my ability too. -- wintonian  talk  20:11, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. --  Non-Dropframe   talk   16:16, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. --  Non-Dropframe   talk   16:16, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. --  Non-Dropframe   talk   16:16, 8 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep Reviews in RS have now been added to page, and these reviews carry this author past WP:AUTHOR.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:01, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * What is "RS", please? Maproom (talk) 21:42, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * RS meeans reliable sources Coolabahapple (talk) 13:36, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Right, thank you. I could also question "reviews": many of the so-called "reviews" now cited in the article are one-sentence plot summaries. But I see there are now also some actual reviews, so I shall be voting to keep. Maproom (talk) 14:19, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. Easily meets WP:AUTHOR ie. "3.The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.", His works are held by hundreds of libraries worldwide reflecting their "well-knowness"(?) eg. A Crack in the Line is held by over 900 libraries, The Killer Underpants is held by over 500 libraries. They have been the subject of numerous independent reliable reviews which is now reflected in the article, thanks to Tokyogirl79 Coolabahapple (talk) 14:00, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:10, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep as nominator. I am pleased to see there is now compelling evidence of notability. Maproom (talk) 14:19, 11 August 2015 (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.