Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Willow Rose


 * 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:52, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Willow Rose

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A baby girl named "Willow Rose" is in the news.

This author fails WP:BASIC Marvellous Spider -Man 12:14, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 14:46, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 14:46, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

the baby has a last name. It is "Willow Rose Forrest" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Therese Boeje (talk • contribs) 16:00, 12 September 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:31, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: 44 books is nothing to sneeze at, but are they published by any mainstream publisher?  Looks like mostly vanity presses. Willing to wait a bit to see what people find.   Montanabw (talk) 21:52, 20 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Weak delete My sweeps of Danish news (for "Therese Philipsen") as well as a general sweep for "Willow Rose" (using Google's 'news' filter) didn't come up with much. A cursory check of Amazon found that she has indeed published many books; my sense is she has a following of thriller readers, and has tapped into a successful formula for hooking readers on a series. Looking through the Amazon reviews, especially on a highly-read book, there are quite a few reviewers who say the quality of the writing is mediocre and predictable; still, 173 reviews is not too shabby, and there is a likelihood that many of the so-called 'verified purchase' books were giveaways or free copies via a promotion. Here's a blog review which says a Willow Rose book was slow to start but picked up after chapter 9, then became a page-turner, and the reviewer was sent a copy by the author; but that's not an established book critic as far as I can tell. I've been hunting for a serious review from a known critic of one of her books, but what I am finding is Wordpress writeups and such. In Goodreads, she has many reviews, usually hovering around 3.8 out of 5 stars -- suggesting she's a competent but not exceptional writer. She seems to be skilled at promoting her writing through interviews. I know, I know, pageview tallies are not an official way to evaluate a bio article but in my experience it is correlated with notability (like, I'm hesitant to delete somebody with 200+ pageviews a day); and Willow Rose weighs in with 8 pageviews a day (30-day average) as of Sept 21 2016, which is rather mediocre. So, overall, competent and prolific writer, great self-promoter, lack of critical reviews by real critics (what we really need here at Wikipedia) => weak delete.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:32, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: Well, a formulaic hack writer could still be notable, are her books independently published?  Does she show any reviews in the legitimate genre press?  I'm leaning delete, but I know that even major genre writers don't always get much coverage in the mainstream press unless they achieve celebrity status, which is not the same as notability.   Montanabw (talk) 21:57, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as WorldCat shows a mere an therefore unconvincing 24 holdings, not at all convincing, the article then contains nothing else convincing for establishing her own article with substance. Noticeably, the sources themselves consist of trivial and unconvincing sources which is not surprising because that's what could also be said of this article's information. SwisterTwister   talk  07:40, 30 September 2016 (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.