Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shiloh Walker

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. Article clearly needs work, but there is rough agreement that the subject satisfies our notability criteria. — The Earwig ⟨talk⟩ 19:28, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shiloh Walker

[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)

Fails both WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG. The references used in the article are all primary. I can't find any significant independent coverage online, or any other evidence of notability. Lennart97 (talk) 23:36, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:38, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:38, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak-ish keep. Plenty of reviews in PW and Kirkus: [1], [2], and some coverage of her personally at ProQuest 241247958 and [3]. But PW and Kirkus review just about anything, hence the "weak". AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 23:47, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@AleatoryPonderings: The Guardian piece is interesting; it's definitely more than a passing mention, but I doubt whether it counts as significant coverage of the author. I can't access the ProQuest article, although I can see that it's from The Courier-Journal. Could you maybe quote or describe the relevant passage? Lennart97 (talk) 00:02, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Courier-Journal piece is a profile of Walker and another romance writer; it mostly describes her daily life. Relevant passages include: "Walker will see her 21st romantica book released this month, and she's found her newfound success blissfully overwhelming. The former nurse was able to quit her job to write full time and she fields fan letters and e-mails on a regular basis. Her husband is still in awe." AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 00:06, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There's significant coverage of her and her work in Gale Literature: Contemporary Authors (it gives an overview of her career up until 2016). She's had 12 reviews in Publishers Weekly. (Click "More By and About This Author") She's been reviewed at least once by Booklist for Headed for Trouble [4]. The Gale source also mentions other reviews she's received (like from RT Book Reviews, which probably couldn't be easily accessed now). I personally think she has enough to pass WP:AUTHOR, although I can see why this was nominated - the article was filled with non-independent sources (and the primary/non-independent sources should still probably be weeded out, although that's separate from the notability issue). - Whisperjanes (talk) 23:30, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing showing Walker is at all notable. If kept we really, really, really need to trim down the size of the article. We do not need a table listing the editors for the works for example.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:54, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In my experience, Kirkus and PW review few romance writers. She easily meets the notability criteria for authors. pburka (talk) 14:33, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vaticidalprophet (talk) 05:05, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on WP:NAUTHOR point 3, and that Kirkus has reviewed more than one of her books in her field of writing is unusual. Article needs work though.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 09:01, 30 January 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.