Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pamela Holm


 * 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 delete. Article currently fails to establish notability. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 02:30, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Pamela Holm

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Questionably notable and improvement especially given its current version and the best I found was this and this. SwisterTwister  talk  23:43, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  23:44, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  23:44, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete Promotional, and unsourced. LaMona (talk) 14:53, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk  18:33, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Apologies to and  but this is a keep as it meets WP:GNG (and WP:ANYBIO?) as I have found these: two reviews from Publishers Weekly  - "With a quirky protagonist who likes bugs and her spunky daughter who keeps a rat, Holm has fashioned a charming urban tale of heartbreak and survival.",  - "This addition to the crowded memoir shelves offers an entertaining but unsurprising look ... The author is at her best depicting the strong, healthy relationship with her kindhearted fiancé, which will assure readers that Holm has as good a chance as anyone can to make a marriage work, long after the wedding hoopla is over." and  - one from Kirkus Reviews - "Awfully trite, but distinguished by delicious, sharply observed scenes of San Francisco’s various neighborhoods and inimitable seasons.", also this on her musical -  - "In many ways, it's a surprising topic for her: it's a play about a cat lady whose attempts at online dating are foiled by a persnickety cat. Holm is married, has never used Internet dating sites and is incredibly allergic to cats." and this from new york times books in brief.  - "She can also be humorous and touching as she probes everyday fears about raising a teenager, being alone or committing herself to a partner for life." and this amazon page show a Booklist review (sorry, i don't have access to booklist) - "Recent brides or brides-to-be will probably feel like Holm has been reading their diaries, but the funny, anecdotal story of one woman's preparation for marriage will appeal to more than just the recently engaged or wed." Coolabahapple (talk) 19:47, 5 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Considering this is getting close to relisting, I'll ping interested subject users and .  SwisterTwister   talk  19:49, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment In spite of the reviews that Coolabahapple found, I'm still seeing a very minor author who publishes with small, minor presses. Unless we decide that everyone who publishes a book or three gets a WP page, then this one doesn't make it. We've had this discussion before, but if your only reviews are in the magazines that exist to review not as criticism but as purchasing guides, then I don't see notability. LaMona (talk) 22:00, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment (a couple actually, with a healthy dose of sarcasm), I don't see where WP:GNG precludes "a very minor author", a matter of opinion, as long as the topic meets the guidelines; ditto "small, minor presses", oh well, there goes all the self published/ print on demand authors/books. talking about WP:NBOOK which needs two or more non-trivial reviews, from the above reviews I found, two of her books could in theory have their own articles, unless kirkus and PW are now deemed not useable for notability, I haven't seen any consensus for this on nbook's talkpage. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:04, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete. promotional almost to the point of G11. Various promotional devices:  the publications list has a separate line for the hardbound and paperback, which we do not usually do. The article talks about "her most recent novel"--but there's only one published novel. There a sentence about the totally non notable activities before she became a writer. there's a line about where her daughter goes to college. There's information about when her radio show can be heard and on what channel. There's an external link to her playlists on the show. She's referred to in the article by her first  name alone, which is never appropriate for an encyclopedia except for some genres of entertainers. She isslightly notable, and a case could be made for a proper article.Given all the notable people that don't have articles in WP and need one, it's folly to work on articles for the minor authors who are here to get publicity for their work. I can see a case for keeping them if its done exactly right, I can't see a case for fixing the ones inserted both written wrongly, and for the wrong purposes.  DGG ( talk ) 05:54, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep While I agree that there are many notable people who don't have articles written in Wiki, I see no reason to delete this one if she's been written up in Publisher's Weekly and Kirkus as found by . Further, with the state the article is in now it's practically a blank slate. As editors we don't decide how great a writer is (that would be original research), we look to see if there are RS and if their work is reviewed in a non-trivial way. It shouldn't matter how it was published. Further, I would add that even if you look at certain mags as "purchasing guides" that's still criticism. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:12, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr  \ talk / 03:21, 8 November 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.