Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Autumn Christian

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. I will add a cleanup tag to the article to reflect the need to comb through the refs more thoroughly. bibliomaniac 1 5 04:24, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Autumn Christian

[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)

non-notable author of self published books with no major reviews and largely sourced to blogs, unreliable (fake news SEO sites, pay for publishing etc...) sources and nothing better in my WP:BEFORE. Praxidicae (talk) 13:46, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:40, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:40, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:40, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:41, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:41, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no reliable source reviews that would add up to showing she is a notable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:45, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: More than adequately sourced.--Ipigott (talk) 06:20, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Based on which sources? Praxidicae (talk) 10:58, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:11, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but trim. (Here from a request on WT:WIR) My analysis of whether book reviews in this version pass RS (based on whether they appear to have editorial control over reviews by separate reviewers and editors rather than being a one-person blog):
- References 3, 6, 13 (Slug Mag): reliable
- Reference 21, 24 (This is Horror): reliable
- References 33, 35 (The Big Smoke): reliable
- Reference 34 (Cultured Vultures): reliable
- References 1-2, 9, 11-12, 14, 17, 20, 23, 25-32, 36: not reviews
- References 4-5, 7-8, 10, 15, 19, 22: self-published reviews, not reliable
- Reference 18 (Horror Palace): not reliable (pay-for-play)

Overall I count eight small-press reviews that I think are reliable, of multiple books, enough for WP:AUTHOR for me. But they were difficult to find among all the junk references, which should be trimmed back to only reliable sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:51, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per David Eppstein. Thank you for the analysis, and I agree the stragglers should be trimmed. Her book, Girl Like a Bomb, seems to have a lot of reviews, and adding the fact that she has reliable reviews for other works, she seems to meet WP:AUTHOR. - Whisperjanes (talk) 02:46, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Dark Continents is one of those independent publishers that print a lot of rising SF writers. Bearian (talk) 00:54, 15 April 2020 (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.