Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tyne O'Connell


 * 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   no consensus. v/r - TP 19:10, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Tyne O'Connell

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails notability, and WP:AUTHOR, lacks real sources. A long-standing article whose content has been maintained by a series of SPEs, it appears to be a blatant promotion page for a 3rd-tier author. The article provides no biographical reliable sources, merely some weakly referenced pull quotes and links to some non-biographical sources that assert publication in national magazines. As a typical author promotion page, it of course includes the words "best selling", but I find no evidence of her ever having a best seller on any list. Current sales rank on Amazon and BN for random title is abysmal at best (high 6 figures) and the very few reviews are, ummm, "bi-modal", with some scathing reviews and glowing reviews by reviewers who happen to have only reviewed Tyne O'Connell books (single purpose reviewers). I've found a few reviews of her books in the British press, trending towards dismissive and derisive ("a repellent piece of fiction, albeit mildly amusing in parts"). She did get a couple good reviews in School Library Journal, which aggregates non-authoritive reviews, mostly from school libriarians. (She also got ripped in others). In summary, non-notable. Studerby (talk) 22:45, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 6 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Quality of work is no indicator of notability (she could be the worst author on the planet and still have enough coverage to make her worthy of inclusion), but decent sources do seem to be thin on the ground. The Telegraph meets RS, but four sentences is hardly substantial coverage. Delete as non-notable. Yunshui (talk) 07:28, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Change vote to Keep Having done a bit more reserach and stripped out the unsourced puffery in the article, I think this maybe could be kept. Many of her books have been reviewed by notable sources such as The Telegraph and The Independent, which sort of satisfies requirement 3 of WP:AUTHOR. Keep, with room for improvement. Yunshui (talk) 08:09, 6 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - per WP:AUTHOR --BabbaQ (talk) 17:23, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable, lack of sources. Shameless self-promotion on the author's part. PapaDocFerrum (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:22, 11 July 2011 (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.