Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rebecca Daniels


 * 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 12:49, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Rebecca Daniels

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. The entire article is essentially sourced to a single link (and still contains a lot of original research). I couldn't find any better sources for this. Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:41, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:42, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:42, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:45, 5 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment, found reviews of some of her books by Romantic Times ie. Tears of the Shaman - "Rebecca Daniels envelopes us in an atmosphere of brooding fascination .. Although Ms. Daniels leaves many intriguing possibilities undeveloped, she unerringly casts a spell over your senses in this fiery love story."; Father Figure - "Ms. Daniels plays some interesting variations on a favorite theme with blazing passion and heartfelt emotion."; Family Addition - "a romantic gem from gifted Rebecca Daniels. With topnotch characterization, a strong story line and fireworks aplenty, Ms. Daniels leads readers down a delightful romantic path."; Mind Over Marriage - "a touching love story that offers a fresh and appealing variant on an amnesia theme. Ms. Daniels skillfully refreshes this classic plot with appealing characters and strong emotional intensity."; Yuletide Bride - "keeps us breathless with excitement as our hero tries to keep the lady safe from a ruthless killer and protect his own heart in the process. Although resolution of the suspense subplot ultimately takes place offstage, Ms. Daniel's topnotch characterization brings her characters to vivid and appealing life."; Husband Wanted – Fast! - "Although there is an innovative lovers quarrel, the continuing deception does not make a whole lot of sense and negatively influences reader reaction to the lead characters."; Rain Dance - "Rebecca Daniels has created memorable characters in RAIN DANCE (3) though some of the plotting seems a little jumpy."; Night Talk - "Rebecca Daniels nicely depicts her characters' fear and anxiety, which come from threats both real and self-imposed.", but have been unable to find anything else. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:33, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * i have notified the romance project of this discussion on their noticeboard. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:42, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Are these reviews by the website staff or are they user submitted? Sorry, I am not very familiar with the site. In any case, these reviews are quite brief and would require a bit more information about the author. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:49, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It ultimately depends on how the review is marked. RT doesn't allow random user reviews on their website - any and all reviews posted are written by people who work for the site in some form or fashion, meaning that the reviews undergo some form of editorial oversight. They're brief, but to date there has been no consensus that a brief review makes it invalid as a RS. However the thing to be careful of is that RT launched a pay review service RT Review Source, so anything marked as "RT Review Source" would not be seen as a reliable source. I don't particularly like that so many review websites offer review for pay services, but it's become sort of the nature of the beast and at this point we should still be able to use them as long as the pay reviews are clearly marked and the reviews used are not one of the pay reviews. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  07:14, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete at best, still nothing solidly convincing to keep. Delete and wait for better. SwisterTwister   talk  04:51, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon  19:08, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * My curiosity was piqued: Could a woman write 12 genre novels, all commercially published, and they must have sold, or the publisher wouldn't have kept it up - and acquire no notability? So I ran searches on google  Proquest News archive under her penname and legal name with keywords like Harlequin, novel, and romance  and got absolutely nothing.  Not so much as a story in a local newspaper or alumni mag.  No opinion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:24, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * E.M.Gregory - Some of the genres, and romance seems to be one, are essentially reading islands. The same is true of TV soaps and some indie music genres. They have a tight, focused fan base but almost no bleed-over into what one could call the "mainstream." It makes it very hard to find anything other than fan sites that talk about them. I have a hard time knowing what counts as notable for these - they'll never get a NYRB review, that's for sure, even though they may have great fame on their island. Are we being snobbish? If so, is it somehow justified? I dunno. LaMona (talk) 18:18, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * User:LaMona Are there online media that follow this genre that could support blue links?E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:28, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You mean online review sites? Tons. (Google "romance reviews" or look in WP articles for other romance authors.) The problem is I don't have criteria for deciding if they are "serious" - they are definitely fan sites. They gush over the books the way soap fans gush over plot twists and dishy actors. (For laughs, look at the photo to the left of the disclaimer that this is a "family friendly site" here). LaMona (talk) 18:37, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * If some of them are edited (articles assigned, revised under editorial control), and if the sites are discussed in reliable media, they could be regarded as reliable sources. I assume that in addition to reviews, they run stuff like author interviews, articles about particularly successful series and writers in this genre, publishing trends in the genre.  New (online) media can be reliable. ONe way to tes tthis is to attempt, presumably in your sandbox, to compose and source an article on a site you suspect may be WP notable.  IMO, sourcing editorial control is key to distinguishing  between a group blog and a "real" publication.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:57, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I've cleaned up the page, which removed the extremely puffy and promotional bio, which was also largely unsourced. Now as far as the question about how she could publish so much and not receive a ton of reviews, it's a bit tricky. The thing about Daniels's work is that she published, yes, but her books were published as part of Harlequin's monthly publications. By this I mean that each month Harlequin publishes 40-50 shorter novels that are pretty much the equivalent of how a magazine will publish each month. They're pretty much pulp publications that are mass produced each month with the intent that they'll be read and tossed. When I worked at a bookstore we were instructed to strip the covers after 1-2 months and either send them back to Harlequin or throw them away. They're not the same thing as a book that Harlequin publishes with the intent to be around "forever" (ie, until it sells out) on the bookshelves. Now as a result these titles usually don't get a lot of coverage because there are just so many works and so few people that will review them, so it's actually entirely possible for an author to release a ton of work through these monthly publications and remain obscure. Now this doesn't mean that they can't be reviewed and sometimes there will be authors that rise out of these ranks to become one of the authors that Harlequin is more serious about publishing - Nora Roberts started out as one of their pulp romance authors. (This is not meant as a slight, just that there's a marked difference between how Harlequin promotes their authors, depending on where they publish.)
 * The TL;DNR about this is that this woman published through Harlequin's pulps, books that were meant to be sold for only 1-2 months and then trashed. This makes it far less likely that she'd have been reviewed, but not completely impossible. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  04:30, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e talk 01:34, 24 May 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Weak keep After the helpful explanation by Tokyogirl79 above, and adding the important caveat that while this author seems to have been relatively prolific and relatively popular in her field based on current online sources, she actually stopped publishing new material 13 years ago, I believe her notability under WP:NAUTHOR needs to be inferred from the available evidence rather than dismissed for a lack of sources. If she was publishing her run of Harlequin pulps today, I've little doubt the weight of specialist new media romance coverage would see her through even if she never made it anywhere near the NYRB; as it is, what she's already got (despite having been most prolific in the previous century, and despite not having written a new book since 2003) is still borderline acceptable, which indicates a certain profile, and that in turn seems favourable if we speculatively compare it to "current" authors in the same sphere and the same publisher. Perhaps some of Tokyogirl79's information could be added to the article to provide context. ✤ Fosse   8 ✤  13:44, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Music1201  talk  23:14, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - That her writings have gotten a reasonable amount of notice is clear, but I'm really wary about using these various websites being referred to as sources. There's also the core, central point: if even her writings don't get coverage outside of niche publications online, never brought up by local papers or anything of the sort, and information about her as a person is pretty scant... how can we even have a real article in the first place? CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:18, 2 June 2016 (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.