Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessica Bell

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 redirect to Keep Shelly In Athens. J04n(talk page) 19:41, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Bell

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

Non-notable promotional article. RedUser (talk) 15:57, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Kb.au (talk) 22:09, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Kb.au (talk) 22:09, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Kb.au (talk) 22:11, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Keep Shelly In Athens. A few minor literary awards, but nothing that would indicate that she would pass the WP:GNG. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:57, 11 February 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as per my PROD: "Non-notable author with coverage mostly limited to local news and first-party sources. No significant coverage in independent sources." Article is just a promo piece about non-notable author, filled with red-links to non-notable bands and publications she's been linked to. No content of encyclopaedic value worth saving. Kb.au (talk) 14:54, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep more refs have been added, many of significance. Web Warlock (talk) 19:46, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I have added more refs. Web Warlock (talk) 01:42, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment should we transclude the AfD talkpage entry, here, which seems to be a copy-paste of the one on article's talkpage?shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 23:01, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article needs more/better sources but dismissing Bell as completely non-notable is too drastic. Yintan 08:17, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Revisit. The article needs more sources and better ones but to dismiss Bell as non-notable is wrong too. Could we not keep it and improve it?Wiindigookaanzhimowinuk (talk) 12:33, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gee, what a familiar rationale. Where did I hear that before? Yintan 12:54, 12 February 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Will someone improve it though? At the moment, it's just a promo piece written by either a paid author or the subject (See WT:Articles_for_deletion/Jessica_Bell and Talk:Jessica_Bell). WP:TNT wouldn't be inappropriate here. Kb.au (talk) 04:02, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some work on improving the sources and so have others. It's already a lot better than the original version. Maybe a little copy editing later. Yintan 10:09, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 21:05, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: So how does it look now?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 00:16, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:11, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:11, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:11, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I've had a look at the renovated article and it's better. I still think a redirect is the most appropriate course of action here since the band seems to be what she is known for primarily. However, the ABC and Publishers Weekly sources look good and I wouldn't be upset if we kept either. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:02, 3 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Delete One of her books, Dear Reflection: I Never Meant to be a Rebel got a real,single paragraph, review in the Sydney Morning Herald. And her name was mentioned in a list of several writers in an article in The Guardian Self-publishing lets women break book industry's glass ceiling, survey find, but it does not appear to add up to quite enough to pass WP:GNG, and there are snot enough reviews of her work to pass WP:CREATIVE.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:39, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep significant coverage in multiple sources has been added recently, deletion would be a HUGE overreach at this point. CrispyGlover (talk) 00:16, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This would be more persuasive if Crispy cited an article offering SIGCIV, and also, frankly, if Crispy had a less unusual pattern of editing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:23, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Many of the sources are decidedly not WP:RS, but I looked at the two suggested by Lankiveil (ABC and Publishers Weekly). Neither one convinced me. I also looked at the Guardian article, but that's just a passing mention. The tone of the article is quite promotional. A full bibliography? This reads more like a resume than an encyclopedia article. Redirect to Keep Shelly In Athens per WP:ATD would make sense as well. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:34, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I also read the Pub Weekly and ABC articles, and they are mere brief mentions. This seems to me to be a clear case of PROMO and, possibly, of WP:TOOSOON by a self-promoting author.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:23, 5 March 2018 (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.