Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephanie Perkins


 * 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. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 05:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Stephanie Perkins

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Author of article does not provide notability of author. However, an article for her book, Anna and the French Kiss, has been made with some resources mentioned, such as a being mentioned by NPR. However, I do no think it is enough to establish notability.  Esa nchez (Talk 2 me or Sign here) 02:01, 11 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per nomination; her one book is not enough to establish notability. Lexicografía (talk) 02:04, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - Per the notability guideline for creative professionals. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:16, 11 June 2011 (UTC)


 * DO NOT DELETE per the fact that she actually has been signed for a THREE book deal. As stated here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luckiestxclover (talk • contribs) 02:43, 11 June 2011 (UTC)  — Luckiestxclover (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * DO NOT DELETE - per having a worldwide fan base, a well-received first novel that is being followed up by two anticipated companion novels, and her participation in young adult panels showing her influential nature. Sammich117 (talk) 03:52, 11 June 2011 (UTC) — Sammich117 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * DO NOT DELETE - How would you feel if you were just getting your career started and some one decided to delete your info from a well known site? She is a privy part to Nerdfighteria and she decreases world suck. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.140.35.95 (talk) 03:17, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * DO NOT DELETE - per having a steady, established fanbase and a recognized name within the Nerdfighteria community and her significant position in the still-emerging Young Adult Literature genre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.74.73.191 (talk) 03:07, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * DO NOT DELETE - if an audience is large enough (as it clearly is in this case, given her fanbase), having only 'one publication' to her credit so far does not invalidate her presence. Let it stay. DO NOT DELETE DO NOT DELETE  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.246.254.32 (talk) 03:53, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * DO NOT DELETE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.139.10 (talk) 03:39, 11 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - Possible sockpuppetry going on in here. -- Esa nchez (Talk 2 me or Sign here) 03:48, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not sock puppetry. I know you all don't think very highly of what we refer to as Nerdfigtheria, but Stephanie has quite a following. When I mentioned to some of them that you were considering deleting her, they banded together.

If you look at the IP addresses it proves that we're all different people. We're all just fans that care and think that Stephanie deserves to have a page of her own. Luckiestxclover (talk) 03:56, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

LOOK at the IP addresses SANCHEZ. Don't be blinded by your bias kid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.139.10 (talk) 03:58, 11 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. I've added the Not a ballot template to the top of the article. A reminder to all: the closing administrator will base his/her decision on the reasoning presented in the !votes than on the sheer number of keep/delete votes made. Also, !votes made by unregistered users (IP addresses) are likely to be thrown out because of the potential for abuse. —C.Fred (talk) 04:00, 11 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - It is an amazing thing how a series of IP addresses all weigh in using the same exact utterly non-standard phrase. This article can certainly use the input of content and sourcing by all six of these like-minded editors at this point, because right now it's utterly non-encyclopedia-worthy. This team of six dedicated editors should have no trouble getting this into shape before the gong rings, eh?Carrite (talk) 04:24, 11 June 2011 (UTC) last edit: Carrite (talk) 04:27, 11 June 2011 (UTC)


 * DO NOT DELETE Let's define "notable" here.

By the standards of the notability guideline for creative professionals, Stephanie Perkins is "widely cited by peers and successors." Her work is talked up by John Green in this video, as well as several New York Times bestselling authors (as seen here.) It is argued that reviews and mentions "do not count towards the article for the author," and yet this guideline claims it certainly does. This argument is invalid.

Considering her three book deal, she also falls into the "collective body of work" category, as referred by this same policy. This author should not be chastised simply because her bibliography is continuing to grow. The Wikipedia article should remain in order to document her expanding body of work.

To those that discredit Nerdfighteria, even the concept of Nerdfighters is of merit to be mentioned throughout the Vlogbrothers Wikipedia page.

Quite simply, I view a notable author as someone whose work has touched and is renowned by fans and peers alike. Stephanie Perkins is clearly already making a buzz in the YA literature community, so whether she is of enough merit to fill a Wikipedia article should not be of concern. Even a simple Google search offers several pages of relevant results. As her body of work and career expands, there will certainly be no shortage of research or content on this author.

Keep the article! Whitleebee (talk) 05:27, 11 June 2011 (UTC) — Whitleebee (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * DO NOT DELETE By all means, the fact that Stephanie Perkins is a published author and has a three book deal alone should meet the qualifications for a Wikipedia page. I feel like this shouldn't even be up for discussion. She has the merit. Just stop arguing and give her the page already. PurplePostIt (talk) 05:33, 11 June 2011 (UTC) — PurplePostIt (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete Stephanie Perkins may have great merit as a writer and should grow in her reach and in her following. But the content is almost entirely pasted in from her website, and as such is promotional. This does her an injustice. Egonb (talk) 06:46, 11 June 2011 (UTC)


 * A few of us are in the process of revamping her entry to make it more complete, so I ask that you re-review it in a couple of days before you vote delete on those premises.
 * To address the concern that my account has mostly been used for this, that's correct. I made this wikipedia account years ago (I'm honestly unsure of how many.. I believe 3) for a school project. Since then, anytime I wanted to look something up, there's been an article on it. Tonight I went to look up one of my favorite authors, Stephanie Perkins, and was unable to find an article. I was excited to create something that I felt would benefit the community. When it was nearly immediately deleted, yes, I started advocating on her behalf. I understand that the article was not handled entirely professionally in the beginning. There was just a lot of excitement at seeing the page go live. However, it is now being fully developed and more content will be added as it is found. Please realize that there are so many of us out there that have been touched by Stephanie's books. There were so many people who came to post dissenting opinions because no one could believe that her article would be deleted when so many other articles exist on wikipedia, seemingly of less merit.
 * I do apologize again for the less than responsible behavior initially. As I said, we were all just a bit giddy. (Frankly, getting the wiki article made caused Stephanie to tweet me back.. Not knowing her personally, having someone I admire carry a conversation with me was pretty exciting). People become 'notable' for having lots of babies or being rich.. In my opinion those are far less deserving of a wikipedia entry than someone who creates literature that touches the lives of all ages.
 * Thank you for your consideration in this matter. I really hope that you will see the benefits of allowing this page to remain on wikipedia. Sammich117 (talk) 07:48, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Egonb, by "pasted in from her website", do you mean we have a copyright violation situation, where a speedy delete of the article may be in order? —C.Fred (talk) 16:51, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Although after comparing the article text to her website, I do not see evidence of copyvio. There are blurbs copied, but they're set off as direct quotations and referenced. —C.Fred (talk) 16:55, 11 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Relist with a semi-protected AfD so we can have a proper discussion.— S Marshall T/C 08:07, 11 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. No evidence is provided that Perkins meets the WP:AUTHOR criteria for specific notability of creative persons. Additionally, after looking at the sources, she fails the general notability guidelines for lack of coverage in sources that are independent and reliable. The bulk of the references in the article are to blogs and other sites without a demonstrated editorial policy, or to sites controlled by Perkins or those with a conflict of interest toward her. The one independent, reliable source I saw was to an interview my the Mountain Xpress, a local newspaper. Until she gets more coverage in the reliable media or wins an award or the like to meet WP:AUTHOR, she does not warrant an article. —C.Fred (talk) 17:04, 11 June 2011 (UTC)


 * C.Fred Re possible copyright violation: I was very confident about my observations at the time of of posting, and can see that the authors of the page took heed of the messages and made many changes in order to save the page. They seem to be newcomers, clearly devoted to Stephanie's writing and anxious to share their enthusiasm. Twitter traffic about the page reflects this. Unfortunately the devotion may be a barrier to writing from an independent and neutral POV. It now appears as patchwriting, disguised plagiarism, and largely drawn from her personal website bio and from the interviews on blogs. If the page is not to be deleted on other grounds, the authors will need to find their own voices. As also a newcomer I can admire their pluck and energy, and wish them well in their efforts. Maybe next time around. Egonb (talk) 20:29, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 00:04, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: Semi-protected and relisted, per above wise comment by, and his accompanying suggestion. :) -- Cirt (talk) 00:05, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR; no reliably-sourced content to merge; no purpose in a redirect; it's all very simple.— S Marshall  T/C 22:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR due to lack of reliable sources. LibStar (talk) 03:15, 21 June 2011 (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.