Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tamara Thorne


 * 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. § FreeRangeFrog croak 21:15, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Tamara Thorne

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Insufficient notability for this encyclopaedia established in the article as it stands, nowhere near fulfilling WP:AUTHOR. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:12, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: see also Articles for deletion/Alistair Cross. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:22, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete due to no reliably-sourced claims within the article meeting notability requirements and insufficient reliable sources for verification. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 22:32, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Changing to Keep based on the sourcing work done by E.M.Gregory. I think this article barely squeaks by now. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 21:51, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * needs a closer look there are, in fact, easy to find claims "bestselling', "well-known". I have added them to the page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:07, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Some of those are by the subject of the article herself, so can not be used to establish notability. Some of the others are passing mentions of her works, or listings of her works, which also can not be used to establish notability. If you can find other articles to use, that would be fine. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 18:00, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Nihonjoe I can see that you are an experienced editor, but you are abusing AFD. You are charged not to judge whether there are sources on the page, but to ascertain whether sources exist.   WP is NOTDESTRUCTIVE,  and for you to breezily dismiss the notability of a writer with this many books in print - and condescendingly grant me your permission to search for more sources  - is  out of line. I am not responsible for the validity of this ADF.  You are.  You asserted, with your nomination, that valid sources do not exist.  I see no evidence that you have looked for them. (try, for example, a simple search like:  Tamara Thorne site:LATimes.com)  I will proceed with a little more sourcing, because I assumed at a glance - correctly - that sources had to be out there just from the fact that publishers have published and republished so many books by this author for so many years.  I am aware that I am blowing off steam at you, when this sort of irresponsible rush to AFD is all too common.  I excuse myself because even when I politely began to work on the page, you could not be troubled to take  the least responsibility to search for sourcing before offering your manifestly uninformed opinion.  Wondering why people quit editing?  Maybe they get fed up with arrogant editors. E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:23, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Please ramain WP:CIVIL. I am not abusing AFD. AFD is all about determing whether an article meets the inclusion criteria (a combination of WP:N, WP:V, and WP:RS, as well as some of the sub-pages of those). I don't need to look for sources in order to participate in the discussion. It is not about determining if sources exist. They can exist all day long, but if they are not added to the article then the article may be deleted. Number of books in print is not a valid criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia. If you took my comments as condescending, that's not the way they were intended. It's a turn of phrase quite common in English.
 * Also I didn't nominate the article for deletion; Justlettersandnumbers did that. If you look at the history of the article, you'll find I actually created it over 7 years ago (I don't even remember creating it, but there it is). Please get off your high horse and stop assuming the worst about people participating here. I don't currently have time to look for article on this topic which has no interest to me. I only participated because I was notified of the discussion due to my having created the article. If you find enough sources for the article to be kept, more power to you, and congratulations. I really don't care one way or the other if this article is kept or not. I won't lose any sleep either way. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 21:09, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Sincere apology for having misidentified you. AFD, however, is not determined by sources already on the page.  It is a question of whether sources exist. I can respect a keep vote based entirely on sources already on the page (if they suffice, notability is satisfied).  But iVoting to delete requires an inquiry into whether as yet uncited RS sources exist.  When you don't care enough to bother searching (I often feel that way) you shouldn't be voting.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:42, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You are still misunderstanding how AFD works. Anyone may participate, whether they have an interest in working on the article or not. Anyone may vote "keep" and anyone may vote "delete". Anyone. Even if they don't want to search for sources themselves. AFD is determined by the sources in the article. The final decision is absolutely not based on whether sources may exist out there somewhere. Unless they are in the article, they don't count. And I'm now done here. I have more important things to do than to argue semantics with you. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 21:47, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Nihonjoe please take a look at WP:NRV and WP:ARTN. It reads: "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. If the subject has not been covered outside of Wikipedia, no amount of improvements to the Wikipedia content will suddenly make the subject notable. Conversely, if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability." I grant that this was and remains a case of:"very poor writing and referencing"  Also, Of course anyone can come to AFD.  But the process bogs down and sometimes misfires unless editors understand the standard of judgment, which is the notability of the subject, not the sources that happen to be already on the page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:57, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Do not copy your comments here and place them on my talk page. I've already read all those poilicies and guidelines, and I likely know them better than you do. Just drop it already. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 22:19, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Justlettersandnumbers has created an inappropriate AFD. By his own description, he based his AFD on "Insufficient notability for this encyclopaedia established in the article as it stands, nowhere near fulfilling WP:AUTHOR"  But the policy is  WP:ARTN.  Even when Justlettersandnumbers visited this admittedly paltry page, there were indications of notability.  Frankly, I think the AFD should be withdrawn by Justlettersandnumbers as an act of good faith.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:52, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That's absurd. On the one hand, you say Justlettersandnumbers nominated in good faith, and on the other, you attack his motives for nominating. When the article was nominated, the article did not have sufficient reliable sources in the article to meet notability and verification requirements. It doesn't matter how notable someone is, if their article doesn't have any of those reliable sources in it, then the article might get deleted. All we care about on Wikipedia is if the article itself is properly sourced. We don't care how many tens, hundreds, or thousands of reliable sources there might be out there if none or few of them are in the article here.
 * Now, you've had your say on this discussion. How about you give everyone a break and let others make comments? There's nothing else you could possibly say which will improve this discussion. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 22:19, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Er, no, actually. You are entitled to have opinions, not to flout policy guidelines when you participate at AFD see: WP:NRV and WP:ARTN.  Of course, experienced editor will simply ignore iVotes that ignore policy.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:11, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not flouting anything, let alone any policies or guidelines, and I ask that you refrain from making false accusations against me. Please comment on the article itself, not your perceived views of the actions of other editors. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 06:25, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Thorne is a paperback writer of horror fiction, (literary snobs may wish to leave the room now). Seriously, folks, she has sold serious numbers of books over the course of many years,several of her books have been brought out in new editions years after initial publication. She is not the subject of PhD dissertations in literature departments. Nor is she likely to be offered the opportunity to discover whether the cabins at Yaddo are haunted.  What she has that few Iowa writers do is $ale$.  In re: GNG: attention from general circulation press tends to appear just before Halloween (Los Angeles Times, ); formal interviews appear in the horror industry trade press (The Horror Zine, [ http://www.thehorrorzine.com/Special/ThorneAndCross/ThorneCross.html]); she gets interviewed for local color stories about places she has used as settings for her spooky tales, such as Calico Ghost Town, (San Bernardino Sun, ) There is sufficient secondary source coverage for keep.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:18, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: I've reorganized the article into a better format, added an infobox, sorted the bibliography by series (when applicable), made the lead reflect the content of the article (per WP:LEAD), cleaned up the references, and corrected a bunch of typos and grammar. Hopefully, I didn't miss anything. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 16:52, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Elegantly done. Lovely way to conclude an AFD.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:57, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * WP:HEY, User:Justlettersandnumbers do you want to withdraw/close this now?E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:01, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per article improvements; current references sufficient when I just checked.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:36, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. I can see why it was nominated based on what there was before, but at this point it looks like a pretty solid article.Bjones (talk) 13:26, 24 April 2015 (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.