Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tabitha King


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:33, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Tabitha King

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG. Notability is not WP:INHERITED Curb Chain (talk) 07:14, 11 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. I fully agree that notability is not inherited, but Mrs King has been the subject of multiple independent and reliable sources, both interviews and reviews. She's not as overwhelmingly notable as King is, to be sure, but she is notable. Even if we ignore the sources that are from the Bangor paper and the two interviews at the end, there's still 11 sources left to show notability and I haven't even finished looking. I would, however, potentially recommend redirecting the two articles for the novels she's written to this page, as neither of the books are looking to be notable enough to have an article all to themselves. I'll see what I can find, as I haven't finished looking, but again- Tabitha King is most assuredly notable. If you're looking for reviews that only mention her and never mention her husband, well... you're not going to find them. At some point her husband is always going to be mentioned, just as Michelle Obama is always going to be mentioned in relation to her husband. However there are reviews and interviews that focus predominantly on her.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:40, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:NOTINHERITED clearly. Also, suggesting WP:ILIKEIT, WP:PLEASEDONT, or WP:Clearly notable are not valid arguments for retention.  The author must have made significant, notable, personal contributions to the field.  Mrs. King is pretty much WP:NN except for the association with her husband's fame Яεñ99 (talk) 11:17, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh no, I hate Mrs King's writing. I very much think she's untalented and boring as a whole, but my opinion of her writing has no weight here. However, when you have people reviewing her books and doing interviews that write for Time magazine, the Los Angeles Times, the Salt Lake Tribune, Chigago Tribune, and other publications, I have to ask what more is needed to pass notability guidelines. As far as WP:AUTHOR goes, the author has to fit within one of the following guidelines: (the last one is for academics so I didn't bother with that one)
 * The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.
 * The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
 * 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.
 * The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.
 * She doesn't have to fit all of the guidelines, she just has to fit into one of them and King's overall work has received multiple independent reviews. She has also received news coverage that is about her. Not her husband, not her children, but her. At some point her husband is mentioned, but the interviews and articles are predominantly about her. We can't write off an entire article because she's married to a famous author. As far as sources go, I've gone out of my way to avoid as many as possible that mention her husband. Some mention is to be expected in these, but I've added sources (such as two book mentions) that have no mention of Stephen King at all. She passes notability guidelines because her work as a whole has been the subject of multiple independent and reliable reviews and interviews.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 12:33, 11 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. I agree with Tokyogirl79; admittedly she does not have the notability of her husband, and I fully agree it is not inherited, but there is enough here in the way of reliable sources (and available online) to retain this regardless of who her husband is.  Ubelowme U  Me  12:28, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 11 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - while she is indeed married to an extremely notable writer, we need not to let happen what I've seen happen in some sporting AfDs where a minor standard gets waved around as failed while WP:GNG sits crying in the corner because it's been forgotten. Notability is indeeed not inherited but if somebody meets the WP:GNG, which this person does, any concerns about inheritance are irrelevant. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:10, 11 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep – This person passes WP:BASIC and WP:GNG. Examples include:, , , , . Northamerica1000(talk) 10:32, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - this person has third-party reviews of books, etc., so is clearly notable enough for a Wikipedai article. JoshuSasori (talk) 03:36, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, passes GNG. Cavarrone (talk) 14:58, 18 August 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.