Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruthanna Emrys

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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:17, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ruthanna Emrys

[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)

I cannot find any secondary sources that give her significant coverage, other than one of the two that are already in the article. The other barely mentions her. I did find a few "listicles", but they are focused on her works. Regardless, they are inadmissible as sources. The best possible source, other than those in the article, is entirely about one of her books. It barely mentions her at all and is dominated by a massive blockquote from the book. All sources published by Tor Books are also inadmissible, as it is her employer and publisher. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 09:59, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 09:59, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 09:59, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 09:59, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 09:59, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 10:04, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 11:07, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Improve: it’s really poor form to remove half the existing citations, chop down the article and THEN nominate it for deletion. I restored the previous version so that reviewers can take a closer look at the material available. It’s not a great article as written, but quality doesn’t correlate to verifiability or notability. WP:HEY may be possible. Montanabw^(talk) 14:04, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All of the removed citations are primary. Two are interviews, one is a general blog link and the other is a publisher page. The remainder of the article was completely unsourced. Honestly, the citation overkill at the end of the main paragraph makes it look like the creator was trying to make a non-notable subject look notable. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 14:15, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (edit conflict) - the nominator made substantial deletions to the article before nomination, but based on the article before that happened 1, additional reviews that could be added, e.g. Kirkus Reviews (Winter Tide, 2017), Publishers Weekly (Winter Tide, 2016), Publishers Weekly (Imperfect Commentaries, 2019), sources that could help expand the article: NPR (Litany of the Earth/Winter Tide, interview with secondary commentary, 2017), The Verge (Litany of the Earth/Winter Tide/Deep Roots, interview with secondary commentary, 2017), and sources noted in the nom: Gizmodo (Litany of the Earth, 2014), The Verge (more than a paragraph discussing and comparing her work, including a reference to The Litany of Earth as "remarkable", 2019), and awards, e.g. finalist for Locus Award for Best First Novel 2, Crawford Award shortlist 3, there appears to be sufficient sourcing to support WP:BASIC and WP:AUTHOR notability. Beccaynr (talk) 14:37, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Montanabw, and per WP:BASIC and WP:AUTHOR notability. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:36, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Beccaynr - there seems to be enough sources to base an article on. NHCLS (talk) 09:26, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per existing content and additional sources identified by Beccaynr. The nom could have improved the article instead of simply deleting content. pburka (talk) 13:57, 22 August 2021 (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.