Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kalayna Price

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|1=Kalayna Price}} – (View AfDView log | edits since nomination)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=Kalayna Price}})

Author best known for a 7-book fantasy series. I can only find reviews in Publishers Weekly for books number 1 [https://www.publishersweekly.com/9780451463807], 5 [https://www.proquest.com/docview/1933832970/772E4C5D06644FC4PQ/8], 6 [https://www.publishersweekly.com/9780451416599], and 7 [https://www.publishersweekly.com/9781984805959] in the series. Book 6 also has a second review in Library Journal [https://www.proquest.com/docview/2195368332/772E4C5D06644FC4PQ/4]; however, this is the only one of the series that (barely) meets WP:NBOOK, and so I don't think the subject meets WP:NAUTHOR. Astaire (talk) 04:37, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Science fiction and fantasy, and Literature. Astaire (talk) 04:37, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and South Carolina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
• Keep: The reviews mentioned in the nom are more than we see for the majority of authors here in AfD. I'd argue they show critical notice, for a series of books for the last 15 yrs or so. It's not War and Peace, but we have some reviews over a span of time, that's the bare minimum for author notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:59, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
• :With 9 books written by this author and only 1 of them (barely) meeting NBOOK, and most of the coverage coming from a single source (Publishers Weekly), I just don't see this as {{tq|a significant or well-known work or collective body of work}}. But maybe there's a different prevailing interpretation of NAUTHOR here at AFD. Astaire (talk) 16:45, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::If the author has a single book that passes NBOOK and that book is part of a series, I am generally inclined to either have a page on the author OR have a page on the series. This is because having an entry on say, book 6, would be generally undesirable because it's not very comprehensive, can lack some context for people wanting more information on the series and can generally be seen as an invitation to create (or recreate) articles on the author or other books.
• ::A series page usually satisfies the average person coming into Wikipedia, however sometimes I'll recommend author pages if the author has put out more than one series. It serves roughly the same purpose - giving a more comprehensive overview of everything and having a bibliography section for the multiple series also helps deter people from trying to re/create pages that would fail notability guidelines or otherwise be unnecessary.
• ::This is a situation where I'd recommend the author page simply because of the multiple series. That other series looks to have been cancelled, but it's possible that it might get picked up again or the author might put out other works. That said, this does need some general editing - for example, it's completely unnecessary to mention who is representing her. The page could also use a teensy bit more info about the Craft series. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:18, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::So the tl;dnr here is that while Price isn't a super fit for NAUTHOR, an author article is an easier way to impart information on her work, which has received some coverage. It's a case of IAR in that we're not exactly ignoring notability guidelines, just that since at least some part of her work is notable the author page is probably the most helpful way to impart info about that work to the reader. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:21, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
• Comment: Well, she has entries in Gale's Contemporary Authors ({{Gale|H1000203928}}), and Something about the Author ({{Gale|CX3773000061}}, accessible via [https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/CX3773000061/AONE?u=wikipedia&sid=googleScholarFullText&xid=4e1b1510 TWL]), but the contents of the two, while not the same, are extremely similar. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 05:29, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
• :They help satisfy AUTHOR. Small coverage but we have a few of them together. Oaktree b (talk) 00:36, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

:

• [https://www.sfrevu.com/php/Review-id.php?id=12035 Here's a review] of Grave Dance from SFRevu. I can't speak to the reliability of that website, but they do list their editors and contributors clearly [https://www.sfrevu.com/php/Column.php?ColumnType=CONTRIB here]. Per Penguin Random House's [https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/312618/grave-ransom-by-kalayna-price/ page for Grave Ransom], it seems there is a Romantic Times review for one of Price's other novels - not sure if anyone has access to their archives? Best, Bridget (talk) 14:45, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
• Undecided, leaning towards weak keep. Most of the reviews are glorified plot summaries and I'm not sure if they're independent – ProQuest has eight hits, most with no byline or simply written by "Staff". In other parts of the world this is an indication of paid promotion. I'm not sure if Publisher's Weekly is different, though, and perhaps inclusion itself is a metric of notability. The Gale biography is very good, though. It is definitely sigcov and lists a bunch of reviews on other websites – not sure if I'd consider those reliable sources, but it's something. Maybe this link [https://go-gale-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/ps/retrieve.do?tabID=Biographies&resultListType=RESULT_LIST&searchResultsType=SingleTab&retrievalId=f1b85358-a516-4eaa-ac49-232685fa734e&hitCount=1&searchType=PersonSearchForm¤tPosition=1&docId=GALE%7CH1000203928&docType=Biography&sort=Relevance&contentSegment=ZXAM-MOD1&prodId=BIC&pageNum=1&contentSet=GALE%7CH1000203928&searchId=R3&userGroupName=wikipedia&inPS=true] will be easier than ARandomName123's – I had to search her name in the Biography section of Gale to find it. Toadspike [Talk] 11:14, 23 April 2025 (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.