Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suzanne Arruda


 * 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:50, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Suzanne Arruda

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Cannot find any sources to indicate she passes WP:GNG or WP:NAUTHOR. De-prodded with rationale "widely held books--look for reviews . might meet WP:AUTHOR". I believe they were referring to NAUTHOR points 3 and 4 which suggest the author might be notable if their body of work is notable, but I can't find anything to suggest that is the case for this series. There are reviews from Publishers Weekly, but since they review everything, that can hardly be taken as evidence of notability. Other than that, I don't see anything.

As always, happy to withdraw if there is an indication that I've totally missed something. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 08:57, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  Jupitus Smart  09:21, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions.  Jupitus Smart  09:21, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:31, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:31, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

The subject does not even appear to meet a credible claim of significance, much less notability. Support deletion. ThePortaller (talk) 14:14, 9 July 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  So Why  07:59, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak keep She has reviews, but mostly in specialist publications which like Publishers Weekly review a lot of genre fiction, though PW certainly doesn't review everything published. RT Book Reviews (multiple reviews), Historical Novel Review, Kirkus, PW, Library Journal (I've not checked the other library journals which aren't online). It still needs someone to write an actual article though. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:56, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep – Meets point #3 of WP:AUTHOR, per the subject's works having received multiple independent periodical reviews. North America1000 13:24, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep, meets WP:NAUTHOR, in addition to her books being reviewed by Romantic Times, Kirkus, PW, Library Journal, and Historical Novel Review, some have also been reviewed by Booklist ie. The crocodile's last embrace, The leopard's prey, Treasure of the golden cheetah, The serpent's daughter, Mark of the lion, although most of these are "trade" reviews that some editors (including. it seems, the nominator, for PW anyway) are uncomfortable with (especially kirkus that now do accept payments for reviews, but which ones and since when?), they are acceptable for notability ... with some of these books having 3 reviews they could  have their own wikiarticle (but i'm not going to push it:)). Coolabahapple (talk) 17:00, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment, oh, and the School Library Journal has reviewed some of her books including Freedom's Martyr: The Story of Jose Rizal, From Kansas to Cannibals, The Girl He Left Behind, and heres an article from The San Diego Union-Tribune that gives some background on Arruda. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:39, 18 July 2017 (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.