Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nancy Hayfield (3rd nomination)


 * 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) Exemplo347 (talk) 09:37, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Nancy Hayfield
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Found no sources for establishing notability, so this person fails WP:NBIO, as tagged since August 2008. Both former AfDs were closed as no consensus. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:12, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   01:57, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   01:58, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   01:58, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete I have come to have a better grasp of the guidelines for notability since I did in 2014 when I voted to merge the article, which somehow created no consensus that left the article in place. There is nothing here that is a 3rd party source about Hayfield, indepth or otherwise. They are just directory listings. In fact it is unclear what the source is for the career information listed in the article. This is basically an unsourced artilce on a living person, with some pseudo-sources added on. It has been tagged with BLP concerns for 9 years which have not been addressed. High time to delete an article with no potential for being sourced in any way. If as was claimed in the 2007 deletion discussion she was the "editor-in-chief of a well known magazine" where are the sources to show this. She may have passed notability criteria back in 2007, but in the last 10 years we have realized out notability criteria started out too loose, and she does not pass them now.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:38, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 01:34, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails simplest of WP standards for notability. Cllgbksr (talk) 06:35, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep I just added 5 reviews of her first novel to the page (Washington Post, Boston Globe, Chicago Tribune, and 2 form the New York Times - the Times does that quite often)  The problem with this AfD is rampant PRESENTISM.   Editors seem to think that if someone doesn't come to the top of a google search, they must be notable.   There are lots more sources on this writer/editor.  Including sources on her work as an editor and discussions of her novels published years after the novels came out.  And all I did was run a single search on "Nancy Hayfield" at the proquest news archive.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:39, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Kudos to User:NorthAmerica and User:Peacent, the editors who closed those previous AfDs as "no consensus". With 2 novels out by major publishing houses, it's a pity no one ever sourced it, but at times we seem so short of editors that the WP:CREATIVE we keep are the self-promoters, while writers who get rave reviews but abide by our disparagement of self-promotion get dragged to AfD.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:44, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep With the reviews E.M. Gregory has turned up, this passes WP:NAUTHOR #3. I've added a ref and another piece of career info as well. Innisfree987 (talk) 20:14, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. clearly meets the standards for authors. Another instance showing the need to follow  WP:BEFORE  DGG ( talk ) 23:22, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:29, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per E.M.Gregory's findings; subject meets WP:NAUTHOR.  Gongshow   talk  03:18, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per recent article improvements. Passes WP:AUTHOR with multiple non trivial reviews of the works. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:03, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete, not notable but in a trivial sense and Wikipedia is not a newspaper or UFO magazine. Kierzek (talk) 22:41, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Although her later, UFO-related work has some notability and belongs on the page, notability is established by her early literary novels.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:20, 15 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Sources shown above show notability. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:25, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep, while I think JackPackLambert's comments have merit, I believe that that the notability criteria have been met by the sourcing provided by E.M. Gregory.  Onel 5969  TT me 18:47, 20 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.