Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hilary Cunningham Scharper

:{{la|Hilary Cunningham Scharper}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hilary_Cunningham_Scharper Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Hilary Cunningham Scharper}})

It's fairly clear from the edit history that this article was created—possibly by the subject—to publicise a novel, and an obscure literary genre. The same SPA responsible for this article also created one for what I assume is her husband, since deleted (See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Bede Scharper). The subject doesn't meet the notability criteria for academics (WP:NACADEMIC), doesn't meet WP:AUTHOR, and I'm fairly sure the novel fails WP:BKCRIT, which is a fairly low bar. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 13:00, 4 February 2018 (UTC) L.R. Wormwood (talk) 13:00, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 February 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:11, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 15:35, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 15:35, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 15:35, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 15:35, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 15:35, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 15:35, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 15:35, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 15:41, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

• Delete Too much use of not recognized neologisms, and the fact that one source listed is a blog suggests a general low quality of sourcing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:01, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
• Since when are bad writing and one weak source among many stronger ones valid reasons for deletion? —David Eppstein (talk) 20:48, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
• Awkward or unclear writing can be cleaned up, and the article has enough stronger sources added that the blog can simply be removed without actually changing anything. So those aren't deletion reasons in and of themselves. Bearcat (talk) 22:34, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
• Keep Her work has been reviewed in RS passes CREATIVE. I added sources to the article. I think that all the ecoGothic stuff could be cut out, too, but I'm not 100% if I should. I would like to point out that it's possible {{u|Johnpacklambert}} missed the sources I just added which include Toronto Star, Hollins Critic and Globe and Mail. I just added those, so John Pack Lambert may want to take another look. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:04, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
• She works in Toronto, so Toronto is a local paper and in no way a sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:06, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
• The localness or non-localness of the sources is not a criterion that applies the same way in every context. Yes, there are some classes of topic where the sourcing would need to expand beyond the purely local, such as smalltown mayors and restaurants and non-winning candidates for political office and unsigned bands that are shooting for NMUSIC #1 because they don't pass any of NMUSIC's other criteria at all — but there are plenty of other classes of topic where we simply don't care how local or non-local the sourcing is, such as big city mayors and provincial, state or federal legislators. The geographic range of the sourcing only comes into play if the notability claim is "doesn't actually pass any SNG but still passes WP:GNG anyway just because some media coverage of her exists" — it's not relevant if the notability claim is "actually passes an SNG for a specific accomplishment that counts as a valid notability claim", such as actual critical attention being paid to a writer. The Toronto Star actually doesn't go out of its way to overhype minor writers just because they happen to live in Toronto — I'd expect that from Now and historically Eye Weekly/The Grid, certainly, but the Star's editorial standards for book reviews aren't notably different from those of The Globe and Mail, a national newspaper which is also cited here. Bearcat (talk) 20:39, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

::::Whether the Toronto Star is "local" isn't an issue—it's whether a smattering of reviews in Canadian newspapers makes someone an "important literary figure", and one who is "widely cited by peers or successors". L.R. Wormwood (talk) 21:17, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

:::::The operand in NAUTHOR is OR, not AND. A writer can get a Wikipedia article by being a "important literary figure" or "widely cited by peers or successors" or by winning or being nominated for a major literary award or by having significant and non-trivial critical attention. They need pass only one of those four criteria — even better if they pass more than one simultaneously, sure, but passing just one is enough. We have lots of articles about writers who do have enough reliable source coverage to be considered notable, but would still be considered minor writers on the "importance" scale when compared to the likes of Herman Melville or John Updike or William Shakespeare or Margaret Atwood — but the test is notability, not fame, and notability is entirely a question of whether reliable source coverage is there or not. And here, it is. And at any rate, "cited by peers or successors" is a criterion that only works for non-fiction writers — it's impossible for a novelist to pass it, because novels don't "cite" or "succede" other novels, so if that were a condition that every writer had to pass, we'd be able to keep very few articles about novelists or poets at all. Bearcat (talk) 21:31, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

::::::Thank you, but I understand NAUTHOR, and the subject of the article meets neither of those clauses. They are neither an "important literary figure", nor "widely cited by peers or successors". They have also not received significant critical attention. You are correct that relatively minor authors can meet the notability guidelines (obviously), but it would take a very liberal treatment of the guidelines to interpret three reviews in Canadian newspapers as "significant coverage". Edit: The final point is just incorrect—of course works are cited in literary criticism. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 21:44, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

:::::::Firstly, obviously you don't understand NAUTHOR, if you think that the two notability clauses you singled out are the only two ways a writer can be considered notable and that there are no other ways for a writer to clear the bar at all.

:::::::Secondly, one of those three Canadian newspapers is The Globe and Mail, which is in and of itself a source that can vault a person above the bar — even a person who would ordinarily fail a notability standard, such as a smalltown mayor, who got coverage in The Globe and Mail could be considered more notable than the norm for their class of topic, and therefore potentially keepable, specifically because there was coverage in The Globe and Mail. The G&M represents nationalized coverage in and of itself, because it's a national newspaper of record — it's a source that can be used in and of itself as evidence that a person, place or thing, even within an otherwise non-notable class of topic, is credibly more notable than the norm because coverage exists in that publication.

:::::::Thirdly, it does not require "a very liberal treatment of the guidelines" to interpret three reviews in Canadian newspapers as significant critical attention — how many more critical reviews do you think it would it take to be enough critical reviews? — and at any rate, we don't have just three critical reviews from Canadian newspapers anyway, as the sources Megalibrarygirl added also include a Canadian literary journal, and two newspapers and a literary journal from the United States, and even among the three Canadian newspapers one of them — The Globe and Mail at that, so reread point the second if that hasn't sunk in yet — is citing two separate reviews of two books on two separate occasions.

:::::::And finally, critical attention is a separate criterion from, and not covered by "cited by peers or successors" — critical reviews are not "citing", a thing that happens only in non-fiction work, but reviewing. So no, the final point you responded to was not "incorrect" — you're conflating a correct statement about one notability criterion with a separate notability test that it's not applicable to. Bearcat (talk) 22:11, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

::::::::{{ping|Bearcat}} I usually have a policy of not replying to rude responses, but I'll respond here. If you think three reviews in wide-circulation newspapers represents "significant" critical attention, then we are clearly just applying different standards. You do this a lot more than I do, so you are probably applying the correct standard—that is, the one generally applied elsewhere. I will say, however, that your claim that being mentioned in a newspaper of record, even in the context of a book review, can "vault" an otherwise non-notable figure over the WP:GNG bar, does not feature in the guidelines, which require "significant coverage". If, in your opinion, mention in a newspaper of record meets "significant coverage", that's fine, but that's just your interpretation of the guideline.

::::::::As for the final point, you are incorrect that "citing" is "a thing that happens only in non-fiction work". In the English language, "cite" does not just refer to formal citation in published work. To cite is to quote or mention something—for example: [https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/cite "She cites a favourite poem by George Herbert"]. Novelists and poets can cite their influences, for example. It is true that "novels don't "cite" ... other novels", but the "peers" and "successors" of novelists, etc, do cite one another. Swift and Pope, for instance, were peers of Samuel Johnson, and they all regularly cited one another. Thomas Carlyle was a successor of Johnson's, and cited him. By the way, novels do ""succede" other novels". It can also refer to formal citation in scholarship, but understood in this sense, critical reviews definitely do cite things, and your attempt to draw an opposition between "reviewing" and "citing" is bizarre.

::::::::I've said all I want to say, so don't expect me to reply further. I am also conscious of WP:BLUDGEON. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 22:49, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

:::::::::There was nothing even slightly "rude" about my response, which was quite polite and measured — if you perceived it as rude, that says infinitely more about your sensitivity settings than it does about my tone. And I didn't say being "mentioned" in the Globe and Mail would be a notability boost, either — I said being covered in the Globe and Mail, in a substantive way that goes beyond merely being mentioned, would be a notability boost. Bearcat (talk) 23:13, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: Thank you for your changes, but I'm afraid she still doesn't meet WP:AUTHOR. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 20:14, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
• Keep. Multiple published reviews of multiple books in major national newspapers (and Publishers Weekly) is a clear pass of WP:AUTHOR. And while the Star might plausibly be discounted as too local, WP:BKCRIT says nothing about locality, and that's not true of the Globe and Mail (it's a national paper regardless of where its head office is) nor of the other papers from nowhere near Toronto. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:42, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

::According to the Wikipedia article, and "based on 2015 statistics", the Toronto Star "is Canada's highest-circulation newspaper on overall weekly circulation". It's a serious paper.104.163.148.25 (talk) 07:00, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: The only WP:AUTHOR criteria this article plausibly meets is the following:

::"The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors."

::Besides some small/independent magazines/blogs, Scharper has had one book reviewed in the Toronto Star and Publishers Weekly, and one in the Globe and Mail. Can you confirm that, in your view, this makes her "an important [literary] figure", and one that is "widely cited by peers or successors". Even if you can do that, I certainly wouldn't characterise this as a "clear pass". L.R. Wormwood (talk) 21:10, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

::*The clauses of WP:AUTHOR I had in mind were 3, "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews", and 4(c), "The person's works have won significant critical attention". I think that the first book having reviews in the Star and Globe and Mail, and the second in the Globe and Mail, Winnipeg Free Press, Philadelphia Inquirer, Publishers Weekly, and at least one academic journal certainly counts for this. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:14, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

• Keep Passes WP:AUTHOR, per Megalibrarygirl and David Eppstein. XOR'easter (talk) 20:56, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

::It objectively doesn't pass WP:AUTHOR, but I'm giving up here. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 21:11, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

• Keep. Regardless of whether the Toronto Star is too "local" to help establish notability for a writer (which I don't agree that it is, but that's not the point), there are numerous other valid reliable sources here now for which that question doesn't even exist to be up for debate in the first place. Bearcat (talk) 21:09, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
• Keep. Appears to be well sourced with significant coverage of the author and her work. Lonehexagon (talk) 22:51, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
• Keep passes WP:NAUTHOR as shown by the additional reliable sources added to the article since its nomination Atlantic306 (talk) 18:34, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.