Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Morgan Rice


 * 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. Aoidh (talk) 04:29, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Morgan Rice

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

Morgan Rice is a prolific author of self published fiction. She is not, however, a published author. None of her work is independently published. Neither is she sufficiently notable in secondary sources for an author BLP. There are a few sources that say she sells a lot of books, but this doesn't make her notable for an article. The books themselves do not get independent coverage. The Wikipedia page has already been speedy deleted in the past as purely promotional, and the recreated page appears largely promotional too. There has been a notability banner on this page since it was re-created in 2016. Does not meet WP:AUTHOR under any of the criteria. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:14, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:14, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete, most hits are for a baseball player with the last name Morgan-Rice and a confrontation that happened during a game in 1988. This appears mostly promo for a non-notable author. Oaktree b (talk) 13:07, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete, any sources seem to fail WP:SPIP, and I could not find any proper reputable ones. ULPS (talk) 13:28, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and United States of America. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:35, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Some sources I found:
 * 1) Profile on the Internet Speculative Fiction Database https://isfdb.org/cgi-bin/ea.cgi?215048
 * 2) https://www.publishersweekly.com/9781939416209 (review in reliable source)
 * 3) https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/morgan-rice/a-quest-of-heroes-book-1-in-the-sorcerers-ring/ (second review of same book in reliable source)
 * 4) https://richmond.com/lohmann-childhood-cancer-survivors-remission-a-reason-to-celebrate/article_7c83bf5a-e769-52a3-a03b-2bbea9667a95.html (passing mention)
 * 5) https://www.cosmopolitan.com/entertainment/books/a34992379/where-to-find-free-audiobooks-online/ (passing mention about her free audionbooks) CT55555 (talk) 16:46, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * This is user generated. Not a WP:RS
 * This is based on Morgan Rice's own marketing copy, but with a few lines of actual review: there's an overwhelming amount of wish fulfillment packed into this initial installment, with Thor's successes and rewards piling up at an unbelievable rate in an impossibly short time. The predictable plot is packed full of fantasy clichés, the pacing is rushed, and character development is hasty. Nothing says SIGCOV has to all be good, but when it comes to a significant author, the lack of any positive review is clearly telling. This does not get close to SIGCOV.
 * This one is indeed a short genuine review. Note it is an Indie reviewer though. They say "A fun but anemic, derivative fantasy." This is a very very long way from WP:SIGCOV
 * As you say a passing mention. Someone met Morgan Rice.
 * Passing mention. Link won't load for me. Free audiobooks mentions are purely promotional
 * Thanks for looking, but this is a very long way from establishing significant independent coverage. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:03, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Publishers Weekly is a reliable source and clearly "The predictable plot is packed full of fantasy cliches, the pacing is rushed, and character development is hasty" is not her own copy.
 * I disagree that the Kirkus Reviews is far from SIGCOV, it is the normal length of book review for a teen fantasy fiction book and satisfies SIGCOV in my opinion. CT55555 (talk) 17:27, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Note, the original post was edited as I wrote my reply. The original thing I replied to said that #2 was the author's own marketing copy. CT55555 (talk) 17:28, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * So I assume we agree that nothing here meets WP:AUTHOR, but WP:BASIC allows, for establishment of SIGCOV:
 * A review in publishersweekly or kirkus review of a book, not the author, is trivial coverage - especially when it is a bad review. That is why this does not come close to SIGCOV. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:42, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep Before I get into why this article should be keep, I want to point out that it is absolutely wrong to say Morgan Rice isn't a published author merely because her novels aren't "independently published." Self-published authors are equally worthy of being called published authors as those published by traditional publishing houses. Also, none of that has any bearing on whether Rice meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines for authors. Per Notability (people), people are "presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." The reviews in Publishers Weekly and Kirkus Reviews shared by CT55555 are valid proofs of notability. In fact, when we consider if authors are notable in AfD discussions we traditionally consider multiple reviews in places like PW and Kirkus to be the deciding factor in proving notability. Reviews such as this are absolutely not "trivial coverage." In addition I found multiple reviews of her work in Midwest Book Review ( here are two examples but there are more, do a word search on her name since the site lumps a number of reviews onto a single page) along with additional reviews and mentions of her work in the San Francisco Book Review, Fantastic Fiction, Dallas Examiner and School Library Journal (see article here where it mentions her as a bestselling author in the teen category). Finally, Rice's works have made a number of bestseller lists. Publishers Weekly notes that Rice's books have made the iBooks best-seller lists multiple times while five of her books have made the USA Today bestseller list (here's one example). In addition, Amazon listed three of her novels being among their 20 best-selling Kids & Teens books in 2013. And she even made the gold-standard New York Times Best Seller List, with her novel The Sorcerer's Ring being listed on the NYT's top ten Children's Series Bestseller List on Sunday, June 9, 2013. Unfortunately that NYT Bestseller List isn't online but can be found by doing a search in the Gale Literature Research Center. Finally, Book Authority lists her book Transmission at #52 on their list of the bestselling SF/F books of all time. Per Notability (people), "multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." I believe all of this reliable cited information combines to prove the subject's notability. --SouthernNights (talk) 18:58, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. The rationale to delete is flawed. Her being self-published should have no bearing on notability (Stephen King self publishes). Likewise, the suggestion that reviewing being negative should discount her notability is incorrect, although I would describe the reviews I read as mixed, rather than negative, each had positive and negative elements, but that's irrelevant, we're dealing with notability, not likability. Keep due to significant coverage in reliable sources above, boosted by being an author of a notable book (A Quest of Heroes). It is normal for an author's notability to be established by reviews of their book (like how it's notable for a football player to be noted for their footballing) so I also don't agree with the argument that suggests because the significant coverage is about her work, that makes it any less useful for notability. CT55555 (talk) 14:33, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment. She's certainly the author of a notable book (A Quest of Heroes; per WP:NBOOK). Whether or not she's created a "significant or well-known work or collective body of work" (per WP:NAUTHOR) is open to interpretation. That her books are self-published is, of course, irrelevant. And that professional reviews of her books are less than glowing is only relevant to demonstrate that the reviews are independent, as it's unlikely she paid for negative reviews. pburka (talk) 19:32, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep Self published authors are capable of being notable and many traditionally published authors aren't. It depends on the sources, and these sources demonstrate notability imo. BuySomeApples (talk) 10:58, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep Self published authors are capable of being notable and many traditionally published authors aren't. It depends on the sources, and these sources demonstrate notability imo. BuySomeApples (talk) 10:58, 12 April 2023 (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.