Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maureen Seaton: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 16:02, 27 May 2017

Maureen Seaton

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

WP:BLP of a writer, whose only evident claim of notability per WP:AUTHOR is that she won a literary award which is not unequivocally notable enough to make its winners notable just for the fact of winning it. The only references present here at all, further, are primary sources and a Q&A interview on a blog, which are not sources that can assist notability -- there's no evidence being shown at all that she's been the subject of media coverage in reliable sources. (Even the award win is referenced to the award's own primary source website about itself -- but for an award to be considered notable enough to hand its winners an AUTHOR pass, that award has to be one for which media pay attention to the award as news, not one whose own self-published website represents the only verification.) No prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can do better than this -- but a writer is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because she exists, and nothing here properly demonstrates that Seaton clears our notability standard for writers. Bearcat (talk) 15:06, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She has coverage from Huffington Post and the New York Times. I don't she how she would not meet WP: CREATIVE. Newimpartial (talk) 15:10, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Huffington Post is not a reliable source. It can be used as a convenience link if and when it's aggregating wire service content from, say, Reuters or the Associated Press — but not if it's the originator of the content. And the only evidence I'm seeing of New York Times coverage in a Google search is a glancing namecheck of her existence in a "today's events" calendar — I'm seeing zero evidence that she's been the subject of any substantive coverage about her. Bearcat (talk) 15:51, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete [[|WP:WI1E|One event]]. As for the Huffington post, it should be noted that wikipedia is not news. Longevitydude (talk) 16:00, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 7: / Line 7: @@
 *'''Keep''' She has coverage from Huffington Post and the New York Times. I don't she how she would not meet [[WP: CREATIVE]]. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 15:10, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 ::The Huffington Post is not a [[WP:RS|reliable source]]. It can be used as a convenience link if and when it's ''aggregating'' wire service content from, say, Reuters or the Associated Press — but not if it's the originator of the content. And the only evidence I'm seeing of ''New York Times'' coverage in a Google search is a glancing namecheck of her existence in a "today's events" calendar — I'm seeing ''zero'' evidence that she's been the ''subject'' of any ''substantive'' coverage ''about'' her. [[User:Bearcat|Bearcat]] ([[User talk:Bearcat|talk]]) 15:51, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
-*'''Weak Delete''' [[One event|WP:WI1E]]. As for the Huffington post, it should be noted that wikipedia is [[Not news|WP:NOTNP]]. [[User:Longevitydude|Longevitydude]] ([[User talk:Longevitydude|talk]]) 16:00, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
+*'''Weak Delete''' [[|WP:WI1E|One event]]. As for the Huffington post, it should be noted that wikipedia is [[WP:NOTNP|not news]]. [[User:Longevitydude|Longevitydude]] ([[User talk:Longevitydude|talk]]) 16:00, 27 May 2017 (UTC)