Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Bakewell


 * 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. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 14:27, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Sarah Bakewell

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

I have tried to clean this article up, but the creator (who probably has a conflict of interest) keeps reverting to reintroduce unsourced promotional material. The subject herself fails WP:AUTHOR as none of her works have had a lasting impact and she isn't discussed separately from her most notable book. Basa lisk inspect damage⁄berate 15:56, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep and clean up if necessary. I don't know what the agenda is here, but deleting 90% of a sourced article and nominating it for deletion is not helpful. One of the deleted sources was a book review in the New York Times. The remaining Guardian link contains a review by The Guardian of the same book. Bakewell is very likely to meet WP:AUTHOR on that basis. I will revert your unnecessary and time-wasting deletion and remove the innacurate 'unreferenced' tag. Sionk (talk) 17:33, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note to other editors - I have attempted to clean up the article and add reliable newspaper reviews (Ubelowme has found a third review - see below). The subject appears to be a respected author. Unfortunately the nominator here is persisting in deleting the content and sources. I haven't got time to pick a fight. Please look at the article in the edit history if this happens again. Sionk (talk) 21:05, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. I found  the New York Times review and a review  in the Independent, and she's won a National Book Critics Circle Award .  These alone would be enough to convince me of her notability.  Ubelowme (talk) 17:40, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep – Not only for the reasons listed above, but because this is a valid article that is less than one day old. Immediately tagging it for lack of references seems like slamming the newcomer. I'm also unclear how the CoI claim can be substantiated. Regards, RJH (talk) 21:59, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - I don't want to get into a fight here either, and normally I wouldn't bother replying, but I feel I need to answer some of the concerns raised. If you have a look at the revision of the article immediately before I nominated it for deletion, you'll see that the claim that I "deleted 90% of a sourced article" is inaccurate - there was only one citation used in the article that wasn't to the subject's personal website, and that source didn't back up anything written in the article. At least one editor agreed with me, restoring "my" version after the author reverted. Also, aside from the references to the subject's personal website, I didn't delete any sources; the sources to which Sionk is referring were actually external links (though I do admit to the removal of the link to the NYT review being an error, I must have highlighted it along with the link above or something). Overall, people, I'd like a little assumption of good faith, if that's not too much to ask. I don't really understand Sionk's aggressive stance towards me, either - at no point did he approach me to ask my rationale, he just shot off on the kind of attack seen above. I don't know what kind of motive he believes I have, I assure you Sarah Bakewell has never killed my dog or anything like that! Basa lisk  inspect damage⁄berate 22:32, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep – This author passes WP:BASIC and WP:GNG:
 * Patricia Cohen, 'Conversation Across Centuries With the Father of All Bloggers', The New York Times, 17 December 2010.
 * Ruth Scurr, 'How to Live: A Life of Montaigne in One Question and Twenty Attempts at an Answer by Sarah Bakewell', The Observer, 24 January 2010.
 * — Northamerica1000(talk) 23:27, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Passes WP:GNG and has been reviewed in major publications sufficient for WP:AUTHOR. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:20, 14 June 2012 (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.