Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amanda Lovelace

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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:45, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Lovelace

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This fails WP:NAUTHOR despite the bold claims here.

The sources are largely unreliable, primary/interviews (some written by a high school student!) or just a listing. The primary claim here is that winning Goodreads Choice Awards makes an individual notable, but the problem with this is that there is no standard for "winning" as everyone and anyone can vote - even multiple times. As per our own article on this, The Goodreads Choice Awards is a yearly award program, first launched on Goodreads in 2009. Users are able to vote for the books that Goodreads has nominated and are also able to nominate books of their choosing, released in the given year. The majority of books that Goodreads itself nominates are from Goodreads authors. The final voting round collects the top 10 books from 20 different categories.

I am also nominating The Princess Saves Herself in This One for the same reason. Praxidicae (talk) 14:37, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:50, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:50, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:48, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:48, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - She has independent coverage and the fact that anyone can vote for Goodreads awards doesn't take away from the fact that she wont it. I've added a few more refs and made some minor text revisions. I'm not as convinced the The Princess Saves Herself in This One merits it's own page - partial merge into the Lovelace page might be appropriate. --Dnllnd (talk) 15:16, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - User is not notable and sources are not credible. BonkHindrance (talk) 16:49, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She passes WP:GNG, with non-trivial coverage from Bustle (magazine), Affinity Magazine, Boston Globe, Study Breaks and others. ~~Given Wikipedia's track record with topics related to women, I do wonder if this page would have been nominated for deletion had the author or subject matter been different.~~ IphisOfCrete (talk) 04:22, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adding on to this, I was able to turn up references in Marie Claire, New York Times, Financial Times, American Booksellers Association, etc. I still can't see a reason to delete this. IphisOfCrete (talk) 04:35, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your insinuation that it has anything to do with the fact that she's female is nothing short of a personal attack and completely absurd. The Globe article isn't even about her.Praxidicae (talk) 12:51, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Praxidicae Mea culpa, I didn't actually look at who posted the nom or else I would have held my tongue or said something else. I get a bit impassioned in these things sometimes and I'm sorry. IphisOfCrete (talk) 19:16, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that a total of two articles are nominated for deletion herein, Amanda Lovelace and The Princess Saves Herself in This One. Commentary above after the nomination is mostly about the main Amanda Lovelace article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:39, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for two reasons, one good and one...not so good as a matter of policy, but perhaps useful color. First, the good one: There are multiple reliable sources reporting on her and her work -- and while the discussions vary in depth and length, when your Google results for someone start returning the Financial Times, New York Times, Harvard Crimson, etc., it's pretty hard to claim that there aren't sufficient sources for a Wikipedia article. Second, she passes the "I, a random person, have heard of this" test. Now, that test isn't great policy for soooooo many reasons. I'm not seriously advocating a rule under which notability would be tied to what I, a random person, have heard of. But if I, a random person, went "oh, yeah, I've seen her books and read coverage of her somewhere" when I saw her name... well, maybe that was random chance, but there's also a decent chance it's because she's notable and thus appearing in media. When that's confirmed by looking to the sources, that suggests a keep. TheOther Bob 15:17, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.