Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Linda Crippes

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Black Kite (t) (c) 10:12, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Crippes[edit]

Linda Crippes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article fails to give any sources which prove she's notable, and a quick google search came up with nothing. BE——Critical__Talk 01:20, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An award isn't sufficient as a reliable source to base the article on. BE——Critical__Talk 05:58, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
True, but you wanted "sources which prove she's notable". There are sources to base an article on that don't prove notability. Her bio; An interview; Her publisher; Book review Book review Book review. Book review Book review. They don't have to be the same sources - you can't write an interesting article from a list of awards, but neither can you prove notability from book reviews or where she grew up; you need both. --GRuban (talk) 06:42, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but none of those prove WP:NOTABILITY, and I don't think they are very good as WP:RS to base an article on. So we still don't have much. BE——Critical__Talk 07:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:NOTABILITY would be the RITA Award, under Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Any_biography, "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor". The only reason I'm saying "Weak Keep" instead of strong is that I'm not sure that is well-known and significant, I'm not a big romance novel reader. (I could tell you, for example, that in Science Fiction, the Hugo Award or Nebula Award certainly would qualify, while the Balrog award wouldn't.) Our article says it's significant, but our article isn't well cited. If someone shows up saying they are reasonably knowledgeable about the romance novel field, and RITA either is or isn't particularly important, I will bow to their judgment. The other sources are plenty good as WP:RS to base an article on, the novel reviews come from recognized experts in the field, which we couldn't use to write about her, but will be fine to write about her books, and the bio comes from the subject herself, which we could use to write about her. Between those we have RS to write about her and about her books, what else could we need? --GRuban (talk) 18:46, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The biography is an "author letter" just stuff she says about herself [2], so not an WP:RS. The award would be noted somewhere that is an RS if it were important. So even if the award were really notable, we still don't have reliable secondary sources to base an article on. It's just not there so far as I can see. BE——Critical__Talk 20:15, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I linked to the award page in my comment, please do look. --GRuban (talk) 21:10, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: she writes under the name Elizabeth Elliott. I'll try to find sources. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:22, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep: based on the award which is documented in Library Journal. That said, looking at the article's history, she wrote it herself. I'd suggest stubbing down anything that can't be sourced. If a new book is released soon, then an review might be written. Also, suggest renaming the article to Elizabeth Elliot - which shouldn't be blue! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:45, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I totally forgot about the name, sheesh :P But you really think this interview is sufficient basis for an article? BE——Critical__Talk 21:09, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, for a stub or start class article, it is. The problem with modern sci-fi, romance, and historical novelists, is that many reviews and interviews are only available on the web. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you may be right, but can you tell me exactly how she meets the criteria here? I just don't think the award counts, on balance. It's not really notable enough. But you may be correct. I think she is close to notability, but not quite. BE——Critical__Talk 23:41, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • note for closing admin: due to copyvio in the article history, if this closes as "keep" or "no consensus", please revision delete (hiding revision text only) under RD1 criteria from the oldest revision to the first revision by User:Fences and windows. This is part of copyright cleanup activities on the article but was left out because of the technical concerns of deleting articles with hidden revisions. Alternatively, leave a note at WT:CP to have one of the volunteers there handle it. Thanks. MLauba (Talk) 11:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep One of the dumber aspects of Wikipedia is its low regard for "Scientists, academics, economists, professors, authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, engineers, and other creative professionals", and I suspect that the policy was developed by self-loathing creative professionals who were insecure about their masculinity. If you're a jock, you simply have to have played pro ball-- sports fans never apologize about being sports fans. Imagine how few sports articles we would have if, say, an NBA player had to show that he "is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors" or "known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique" or "created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews"; or that their sports career "(a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums." What bullshit. That's why we have lots of entertainment and sports articles, and not as many articles about arts or sciences. In this case, I think that the winner of the romance writers award, however, would qualify even under that pathetic little "beg for our permission" policy, because it's a measure of importance among her peers and successors". Sad. Mandsford 16:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I suggest you read WP:CIVILITY and kindly dump the narrow-minded generalities that are utterly misinformed.—RJH (talk) 18:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello RJ. Can you identify the persons in this discussion toward whom I am being incivil? Or which part of WP:CIVILITY says that it's okay to call another participant in a discussion narrow-minded or misinformed? Needless to say, if you wrote the policy, then I understand how you might perceive my observations as being a comment about you rather than the policy itself. If not, then I'm not sure why we shouldn't comment on policy. Mandsford 19:33, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep the RITA Award is well known and significant within the Romance genre satisfying WP:ANYBIO. However !vote weak keep because online RS for any biographical information, beyond the awards, seem to be scarce at this time. Also the article should be moved to Elizabeth Elliott (with two T's, not one). --ImGz (t/c) 19:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep more or less per Mandsford. I find it increasingly odd that, the more significant a person's activities/accomplishments are, the more barriers are thrown up to establishing notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Mandsford has a point re the different standards for various fields. It's not like it costs Wikipedia more than a cent or so for the storage space and processing. If authors were treated like sports figures, anyone who got a book published would be notable. Keith Henson (talk) 19:08, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I do not think the Golden Heart Award is notable -- it is awarded for an unpublished manuscript, not all of which are ever published. I consider it like a student or novice award in any other field. DGG ( talk ) 04:57, 12 August 2010 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Linda_Crippes&oldid=1069486069"