Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sue Corbett


 * 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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 05:33, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Sue Corbett

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This unsourced and undetailed BLP of a writer of children's books whose notability seems to be her ownership of beagle was PROD-deleted, but then recreated with all its original problems carefully preserved. ➥the Epopt (talk) 23:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. The subject does not seem to be notable, and a quick google search on her books does not return many results. -- Mizu onna sango15 / 水 女 珊瑚15  00:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete NN author. Masterpiece2000   ( talk ) 02:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  02:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep According to its Amazon description page, her novel 12 Again was reviewed by Publishers Weekly, School Library Journal, Booklist and Kirkus Reviews. I think she therefore passes WP:BIO's additional criteria of "The person has created ... a significant or well-known work ... which has been the subject of ... multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." (Her novel Free Baseball was also reviewed by School Library Journal. But note that the third book, Baseball Crazy, is actually a short story collection to which Corbett contributed only one story.) This article definitely needs some cleanup, but I think that should be dealt with by fixing it, not by deleting it. -- KittyRainbow (talk) 06:59, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete - As the article sits at the moment it contains no real assertion of notabilty (unless the possible regional awards count), no real attempt seems to have been made to include things in the article for verification purposes. If the article was to include at least the minimum amount of these two things I'd be willing to change my mind but, an attempt to meet the policies and guidelines should at least be made. P.S an anon editor removed the AfD tag so I've replaced that and added some tags to help improve the article if appropriate. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Seems like the tags have been arbitrarily removed again, by the time I checked the article - they were gone. Anyay as far as the subject goes: 2 books, a short story and winning a regional award does not constitute a significant body of work or contribution to the world of literature.  Definitely seems not notable to me.  In addition it seems like no-one wants to actually tackle the clean-up, but merely persistently remove the tags.Austin46 (talk) 15:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 67.163.90.107 seems to be the one removing the AfD tag; they've done it twice now. I've restored it and cleaned up the article a bit, including finding sources for all of those regional awards. (current version) I've also added some sources to Free Baseball so that that (hopefully) shows notability. (current version) -- KittyRainbow (talk) 20:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a huge amount of work that you've put into finding links to the "awards" but only awards that have been actually won are notable. Mere nominations aren't usually listed in articles in Wikipedia unless the nomination is for a major national or international award - like an Oscar - where just being nominated is in itself notable.  Listing every minor nomination is the sort of thing that authors pad out their websites with, but it's not really appropriate here.  Also one of the things on that list - "selected by the Junior Library Guild" may sound like an award, but that's not the case at all - it seems simply to be a Book Club!  For me, it comes back to notability - 2 books, a short story and winning a regional award, isn't yet notable.  Maybe once the subject has written a significant body of work, or wins a significant national prize, someone will come back and create an article that is genuinely worthy of being in an encyclopedia.Austin46 (talk) 09:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually one of the additional criteria listed in WP:BIO is "The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them." So nominations can count. The Junior Library Guild does indeed seem to be a book club, however it has at least had some coverage: School Library Journal, Publishers Weekly. And surely winning a regional award depends on whether that award itself is notable? The California Young Reader Medal is on ALA's list of regional awards: PDF (And bear in mind: this list contains only 27 awards from 23 states. It's not indiscriminate. You may also wish to note that it names two other relevant awards: the Young Hoosiers Indiana Book Award and the South Carolina Young Adult Book Award.) The CYRM also seems to have quite a few Google news hits. As to whether she has created a "significant body of work"... Well, I have always interpreted the part of WP:BIO that I quoted in my original "vote" (i.e. "The person has created ... a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of ... multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.") to mean that a work is significant because it has been the subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. If that is indeed the case, she is notable: 12 Again was reviewed by Publishers Weekly, School Library Journal, Booklist, Kirkus Reviews and Kliatt; Free Baseball was reviewed by Publishers Weekly, School Library Journal, Kirkus Reviews, Kids Reads and The Topeka Capital-Journal. Both are covered by multiple, independent, non-trivial sources and are thus notable. So, I would argue that she is notable. -- KittyRainbow (talk) 03:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Almost every book published gets reviewed in the journals mentioned. Amazon ranks for the subject's two books are #377,065 for 12 again and #73,303 for Free Baseball indicating very unexceptional sales figures ergo a pretty unexceptional author.  If every author of this status had an article in Wikipedia, we'd be drowning in author bios. And we almost are.  Wikipedia editors are the only ones who can keep its standards up by not falling prey to every internet-savvy, self-promoter out there.  That's all I have to say on the issue.  I'm retiring from this now and hoping good sense will prevail.Austin46 (talk) 12:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Almost every book still implies some kind of editorial judgement is required as to what they do cover. These journals are generally judged to be reliable sources that can be used to determine notability. Also, notability is not popularity. I would also like to point out that my defense of this article is not based upon what I've seen on the author's website; in fact the author's website has that particular tone of self-promotion that would usually make me assume they have very little worth promoting. I am defending this article purely because of the third-party sources I have found, which have convinced me that despite how the author presents herself she is notable. -- KittyRainbow (talk) 21:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Ron B. Thomson (talk) 19:31, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Had there been sources (such as news/magazines articles) about the person instead of links to lists of books that have recieved awards then I would be in favor of keeping the article. The only source with information about the author is the author's own website....Statisticalregression (talk) 04:20, 21 June 2008 (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.