Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susan M. Gaines


 * 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. Tim Song (talk) 14:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Susan M. Gaines
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

No evidence of notability William M. Connolley (talk) 21:01, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:BASIC that states "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published[3]  secondary source material  which is reliable, intellectually independent,[4]  and independent of the subject.[5]". See for example: San Francisco Chronicle, "Molecules, Mud, Moon Rocks, and Microbes" in BioScience, September 2009 / Vol. 59 No. 8., the ref sections in the two books she has published: Carbon_Dreams and Echoes of Life: What Fossil Molecules Reveal about Earth History. Nsaa (talk) 21:13, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Of your links, the first is about the book, not the person. So is the second. There are no sources for the person William M. Connolley (talk) 21:23, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Please note that the policy requires that the person be the subject of reliably sourced material. This does not seem to be the case for any of the sources you cite. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:50, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * As far as I see the sources used adheres to the policy I quoted above. Let's quote "Gaines, who has degrees in chemistry and oceanography,", Talking about her first and second book (i.e. talk about her authorship, not the book(s)): "In her first book, Carbon Dreams (2001), Susan Gaines combined fact and fiction […] In her second book, Echoes of Life, with coauthors Geoffrey Eglinton and Jürgen Rullkötter" Nsaa (talk) 12:05, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Those are passing mentions, not in-depth coverage of her. Pcap ping  08:57, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete or Merge to Echoes of Life: What Fossil Molecules Reveal about Earth History. She has no notability outside of the book, so there's no need for a stand alone article about her. Yilloslime T C  19:01, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep She has been nominated twice for the Pushcart Prize this alone is notable. Her papers on the EU have been cited extensivly even by the German Law Journal, which i believe also prove notability mark nutley (talk) 07:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Is it really? The Pushcart Prize nomination page says: Little magazine and small book press editors (print or online) may make up to six nominations from their year’s publications. Small literary magazines may only publish 2-4 times a year. That means that an editor could nominate 2-3 entries per issue. Making it into their anthology might be evidence of notability (and note, it's an anthology, not a single award) but simply being nominated does not appear to be. Guettarda (talk) 17:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - some evidence of notability as a writer spanning the "two cultures" gap. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  16:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - per WP:AUTHOR, subject's work has been the subject of "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". ACS Astrobiology, Chemistry World Astrobiology Society Bioscience. Hopefully it is obvious that these are non-trivial, highly-reliable sources. Thparkth (talk) 20:21, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:AUTHOR says no such thing. Book reviews are insufficient for a biography. The work needs to be significant, according to reliable sources, of course. Pcap ping  08:51, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


 * * WP:AUTHOR says exactly this, as one of the indicators of notability: "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." I would ask you to strike your claim that it says "no such thing". Furthermore the significance of the work is attested to by it being reviewed in Bioscience, Chemistry World etc. Thparkth (talk) 11:40, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, m o ɳ o  03:31, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete failing all criteria in WP:AUTHOR. Pcap ping  08:51, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Regarding your above comments, wp:author says The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. Her novel Carbon Dreams has been described as a new type of genre. it also says The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work which her novel Echoes of Life: What Fossil Molecules Reveal about Earth History is. She defiantly passes wp:author mark nutley (talk) 09:19, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - I had never heard of Susan Gaines prior to this AfD, I still don't know much about her, and I have never edited the article. I think that there is some misunderstanding on the delete "side" about WP:AUTHOR. As "additional criteria" under WP:BIO, a person is "generally notable" if they meet any of the specific criteria for persons of their type. Since Susan Gaines is an author, she is presumed to be notable if she meets any of the criteria of WP:AUTHOR. It is arguable that she meets several of the WP:AUTHOR criteria, but it is certain that she has "created... a significant or well-known work, or body of work, that has been the subject of... multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". In a recent discussion on the WP:AUTHOR guideline, no one was able to provide an example of an article about the author of a notable book being deleted on notability grounds. It very clearly and explicitly is the intention of WP:AUTHOR to extend the notability of a notable book to its author. Anyone who believes that this article should be deleted on notability grounds has the responsibility to show why Susan Gaines is not notable despite being the author of a notable book, which otherwise would be presumed to make her notable per guidelines. Thparkth (talk) 12:34, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per past outcomes, and Thparkth's analysis of WP:AUTHOR criteria. Gaines is therefore, notable. Bearian (talk) 22:04, 18 May 2010 (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.