Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monica Kulling


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 01:17, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Monica Kulling

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:BLP of a writer, whose only discernible claim of notability per WP:AUTHOR is that she won a literary award ("North Dakota Library Association") which is not notable enough to constitute a WP:AUTHOR pass in and of itself. There are no reliable sources being cited here to get her over WP:GNG, either, as the article is referenced entirely to GoodReads and her primary source profiles on the websites of her own publishers, with no evidence of media coverage about her being shown at all. As always, writers are not automatically entitled to Wikipedia articles just because they exist -- an actual notability claim, and the reliable sourcing to support it, must be present for an article to become earned. Bearcat (talk) 14:31, 28 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep As per WP:AUTHOR, a subject may be notable if "the person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work [...] covered by multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". In my opinion, Kulling has created many well known books, as can be evidenced by the number of third party sources giving references to her work. For example, her book was listed by The Boston Globe amongst The Best Picture Books of 2014. Similarly, her work was amongst the finalists for the Governor General’s Literary Awards, apart from being amongst the finalists for the Silver Birch Awards. I'm not saying that these are or aren't notable things; I'm bringing these to the fore to support the fact that her work is very well known, as required per AUTHOR. Additionally, her work has been the subject of multiple reliable reviews, for example - This seems to qualify the subject on WP:AUTHOR in my opinion. I can include these sources within the article, in case the subject is kept. Thanks.  Lourdes  15:23, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:43, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:43, 28 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - Criteria is met given given the significance of her work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jazz4477 (talk • contribs) 17:00, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:38, 28 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep I've begun adding these reviews and others I've found to the entry--there are quite a number of them, passes AUTHOR for me. Innisfree987 (talk) 21:05, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:26, 31 May 2017 (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.