Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Regina Doman


 * 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   no consensus. –MuZemike 19:35, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Regina Doman

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I can't find RSs to indicate this author meets WP:AUTHOR or WP:BIO/WP:GNG. Of the three sources currently listed, one is the author's own site and another appears to be the author's self profile on an author website. The third, though listing the author among the ten most interesting Catholics in 2010, is a blurb in a blog and not the sort of RS needed to establish notability, especially as the only unaffiliated source. Novaseminary (talk) 03:45, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Only independent coverage is, which I find to be insufficient for notability by itself. Chester Markel (talk) 04:44, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 13:40, 18 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:AUTHOR and WP:BK. Qworty (talk) 23:53, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Looks like she has received some non-trivial coverage: Qrsdogg (talk) 21:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment The second and third (the possibly relevant parts of these books, that is) are not about her, and not even the type of reviews or citations that would get a book over the WP:NB line. (The third shows up in WorldCat as being in only two libraries.) Nor, as an analogy, would these satisfy WP:ACADEMIC. The first does have a one paragraph intro about her, but then focuses on Doman's idea of good literature in the context of the Harry Potter books. This, too, falls short of WP:GNG, and doesn't even suggest she meets WP:AUTHOR. Novaseminary (talk) 22:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 18:24, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:29, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep – In addition to what's already been noted, and this interview, I found in a library database of newspaper and magazine articles:
 * "Angel in the Waters". Pieter Vree. New Oxford Review. Berkeley: May 2005. Vol. 72, Iss. 5; p. 44–5. link.
 * "Black as Night: A Fairy Tale Retold". Mitchell Kalpakgian. New Oxford Review. Berkeley: Feb 2006. Vol. 73, Iss. 2; p. 47–8. link.
 * "Disenchanting the Fairy Tale: Retellings of 'Snow White' between Magic and Realism". Vanessa Joosen. Marvels & Tales. Detroit: 2007. Vol. 21, Iss. 2; p. 228 (15 pages). Google link. – this one has some analysis of her book Black as Night. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 01:16, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment But all but the first of these are reviews or mentions of her books (but these probably wouldn't even get any of the books past WP:NB). There is nothing about her here (other than verification that she wrote the books). Just reviews of our citations to one's work is not enough. And the interview is an online site, not in an RS, nor does it indicate she meets WP:AUTHOR and is not sufficient for WP:BASIC / WP:GNG / WP:BIO. If one were to add these sources to the article, they wouldn't be able to support any facts or develp the article. We need relaible, third-party secondary sources (not her website) that can support an article. Novaseminary (talk) 01:52, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It's coverage of the very thing she is notable for: her writing. The reviews and analysis of her work can be used for a "Critical reception" section in the biography. Also, I'm not so quick to dismiss a source just because it is an online-only source. I'm not familiar with Catholics.net but it appears to be an online magazine, not someone's blog, and I think we could be comfortable using it for non-contentious information. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 11:34, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * By this reasoning, though, every academic who has had their work discussed a few times by other academics would meet N. There needs to be coverage about her, and that coverage is exceptionally weak. If that weak coverage indicated she meets WP:AUTHOR then fine. But you don't seem to be arguing that. If the coverage meets WP:BASIC, then fine. But you have not argued that, either, and I can't see how it does. If an author having particular self-published books reviewed in minor and online publications a handful of times (with an interview in a book not at all about the author's work or life thrown in for good measure) passes N, then the bar for authors is significantly lower than in most other fields. I would be curious to see how these sources could be cobbled together to write even a few short paragraphs about this person without resorting extensively to the autobiography on her website. Novaseminary (talk)
 * 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.