Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tess Whitehurst


 * 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. czar 18:39, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Tess Whitehurst

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

After several declines at AfC, article was simply moved to mainspace. Other than trivial mentions, advertisements, and non-independent references, not a single in-depth source currently. And searches turned up virtually no coverage, let alone any in-depth coverage.  Onel 5969  TT me 12:17, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 12:26, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:18, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:18, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I'll work on improving the article, but if the requirements for notability are "major reviews" that won't be one of the things I can change. There are no specific criteria for what is a "major review" and this author's work won't be reviewed by a major publication because of the nature of the topic. I didn't disregard the editors comments. The criteria being set for declining publication of the page wasn't justified. There are several other authors who have pages on Wikipedia who do not meet this requirement. She's published 10 books, most of which are best sellers in the category on Amazon.com. Her latest release was a #1 new release in it's category. She's won literary awards and had her work featured in Publisher' Weekly. I believe this argument for deletion is invalid and is directly related to the topics she writes about.

Can you please provide examples of what you are asking for to provide proof of notability?

Internetgal (talk) 23:48, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, you can read a more detailed explanation of what's required for an author to qualify for a WP entry here: WP:NAUTHOR. Or, WP:NPERSON is another option. Innisfree987 (talk) 01:10, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment I've found some reviews of her books: The Magic of Trees Review PW and Magical Fashionista Review PW. These can be used as Reliable sources, . But I do wish I could find more than just Publishers Weekly. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:04, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm afraid I don't see the sources here to establish notability. For next time I can only advise making use of the guidance offered by AfC reviewers and editors at the Help Desk on how to meet the criteria for an entry in the encyclopedia. Innisfree987 (talk) 17:43, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 03:01, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:41, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:41, 21 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete No coverage in independent reliable sources. Also, book reviews are not sufficient per WP:NOTINHERITED. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 16:53, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Just to note, book reviews could be enough per WP:NCREATIVE #3 but that requires notice in multiple independent periodicals, which we unfortunately haven't been able to find. Innisfree987 (talk) 17:36, 28 June 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.