Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amy Lake

Amy Lake

Amy Lake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

no indication of notability. Disputed prod. References show she has been published not that she is notable. noq (talk) 16:29, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

In my view, anyone who has five published books is notable. Also, I looked at your history. You seem to spend most of your time deleting other people's work, often over loud objections. How many books have you had published? Karen Anne (talk) 16:58, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment Have you read the notability guidelines at WP:AUTHOR. It does not state that publishing a book is in itself notable. How does she meet the guidelines? noq (talk) 17:12, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment What does another user's history or the number of books that another user has published have to do with whether or not Amy Lake is a notable person? Please keep comments like that off of these pages. MisterRichValentine (talk) 21:07, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

• Keep. Five books in the genre is a significant contribution #3.

Karen Anne (talk) 17:35, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

• Delete. General notability guideline - No significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Neutrality^talk 18:39, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
• 'Uncertain. The notability will depend on whether there are substantial 3rd party reviews. It's possible. Worldcat shows about 212 holdings for Lady Pamela , and over 100 for Earl's Wife and Carriagemaker's daughter, which is medium-low for this genre. It does not list the other two, which are avail on the Kindle only and might count as self-published. ~— Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 18:50, 30 October 2011‎ (UTC)
• Delete, no notability, no reliable sources. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 19:58, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
• Keep. Her books are currently being reissued and were formerly out of print. How am I supposed to find reviews from years ago. The fact that they are being reprinted indicates that someone in the profession thinks they are worthwhile. They are being reissued by www.regencyreads.com (Belgrave House), which as far as I can tell is not Amy Lake, hence not self-published. That web site appears to handle apparently 50 or so other authors. It specifically says it accepts as submissions for its ebooks only books that were previously paper published. And I reserve the right to comment on someone who seems to view his role as deleting the work of others rather than producing any work of his own. Just look at his talk page for others comments about this.

Karen Anne (talk) 20:22, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

• • Please only !vote once. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 20:25, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

    By the way, "review from years ago" would not qualify as reliable sources. The article is about the person, not the books, so reviews wouldn't do any good as far as building a biography. In addition, please read WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Personal attacks on other editors are not tolerated on Wikipdia. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 20:25, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

• Delete. General notability guideline - No significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. MisterRichValentine (talk) 21:07, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment There is a lack of consistency in your requests. One says get reviews of her books, another says those don't matter because the article is about the person. Well, the article is here because the person is an author. And I can hardly do anything about the fact that the books are ten years old. However, there is a favorable review by Harriet Klausner, who has her own Wikipedia entry, and therefore is presumably blessed by the Gods as a person of significance, at http://www.amazon.com/Pamela-Standard-Print-First-Romance/product-reviews/0786242329/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1 If you think my comments about Nog do not meet Wikipedia standards, you ought to take a look at his Talk page, some of the comments there make me look complimentary.

Karen Anne (talk) 22:04, 30 October 2011 (UTC)