Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kate Evans

:{{la|Kate Evans}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kate_Evans Stats])

:({{Find sources|Kate Evans}})

Article doesn't meet Wikipedia's requirements for notability for authors under the creative professionals criteria for inclusion. Having two novels published with a small press, that is itself not notable, and a nonfiction personal memoir type book published with another small press, is not normatively notable in the publishing industry. Though this stub indicates she was 'nominated' for awards, she has never won or even placed in any notable literary contest or won any notable literary award. This article is similar to the article for Chelle Cordero, another author by the same small press publisher. Upon seeing both author stubs, it becomes evident, at least to me, that these authors were probably entered into Wikipedia by their publisher in an effort to promote them. With the proliferation of indie authors and small presses that come and go on the internet, Wikipedia should strive to maintain its high standards for vetting articles for inclusion, lest all published authors with small presses deem notability for Wikipedia entries.

Upon researching the publisher itself after seeing these stub bios, it's easy enough to see that this small press publisher is also coming under some scrutiny recently with accusations by multiple authors of unpaid royalties, fraud, breech of contract, copyright infringement and other accusations. While one cannot say if there is any merit to these claims, multiple authors have left the company recently. Perhaps an article about the publisher and these issues is warranted? Even with the accusations, I'm not sure if the publisher and its alleged actions are notable enough for inclusion. I'll leave that far more experienced Wikipedians than I.

http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=85674

http://feelingthefiction.blogspot.com/2013/08/why-i-left-vanilla-heart-publishing_20.html

And where one author is possibly pursuing criminal charges: http://feelingthefiction.blogspot.com/2013/09/criminal-charges.html

— Preceding unsigned comment added by LilahHard (talk • contribs)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:47, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:47, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:47, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:48, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

• Comment (see below) -- Routledge is not in any way a small press, but a major figure in academic writing. That's not in itself enough to put it over the top for keep for me (the nominator seems to be correct about the other presses). What would make a decision either way for me is how many books get nominated in each category for the LA Times book award? If it's essentially a runner up status (like an academy award nomination), I think that there's enough here to keep, because it is a sufficiently notable award that even runner up would be enough. If it's more like the Pulitzer Prize, where anyone can be nominated, then I think the subject is just below the notability line unless more information is uncovered. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 15:37, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

:*move to Weak Delete per arguments of Green Cardamom -- I'd still argue that with the Routledge pub, a win of the LA award would be enough, but the low holdings for the poetry books and with no verification of the significance of the nomination for the LA award, I don't see enough. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 21:27, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

• Delete Unable to confirm the book was nominated for the LA award, much less in what capacity (short? long? submitted?). The LA award is not hugely important on its own, much less a nomination only. If it won best poetry, that would be significant, but then we need multiple awards to pass AUTHOR. I can't find much in the way of reviews. Furthermore her books are very rare, Like All We Love is only held in two libraries (one being her own university). LibraryThing with 1.7 million members records only 2 people with Like All We Love, Negotiating the Self has three members, these are very low numbers by LT standard. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:02, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
• Comment I reluctantly agree that the subject's novels and poetry do not seem to show notability, though it looks more than possible that without the relative lack of popular attention to (and consequent systemic bias against) poetry, the poetry would be notable. The awards record falls a little short - for instance, she seems to have been nominated for the Lambda Awards but not shortlisted. However, while her name makes searching difficult, there is some chance that she meets WP:PROF - GScholar shows no fewer than 94 cites for Negotiating the Self and lower but still significant rates for some other books and articles probably coauthored by her rather than another K. Evans. And her apparent research areas (LGBT studies, education, creative writing) are not ones where citation rates tend to be high. Finally, I find it very difficult to assume good faith about this nomination. The nominator's entire editing history consists of three deletion nominations, all of them of authors or books published by Vanilla Heart Publishing, who the nominator implies have written the articles - a suggestion that can immediately be rejected by looking at the articles' histories. And this one (unlike the others) shows no obvious signs of having been edited by the subject either. In all other respects, Vanilla Heart's reputation as a publisher has no bearing on whether or not this article should be kept. PWilkinson (talk) 11:20, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

:*PWilkinson -- thank you for bringing up these important points -- I am keeping my revised comment (though changed to "Weak delete" which is what I intended in the first revision). I agree that there is a bias against poetry publication in general; something that Wikipedia unfortunately, is not the right forum to address. But the second systematic bias, against poets having articles on WP is something that we can address, and I have tried to weigh in, with what little knowledge I do have of poetry presses and poetry awards, to try to work against that bias (I've been the primary "keep" proponent of two poetry bios that looked to be heading for delete this year but were instead kept). There is also bias against LGBT studies on WP, which needs to be addressed; and the nominator's potential bias needs to be taken into account. However, the holdings for "Negotiating" (240 libraries) seems to be just below the cut-off for meeting WP:PROF (or a writing notability criteria) in itself. My thought is that the author will almost certainly do enough work soon to be enough to be a clear keep and hope to help argue for the keep when it happens, but at present only the Routledge book seems to argue for keeping and a single work that is at the borderline of notability does not seem enough. It's really tough -- there's a review in JSTOR and 8 citations there (several others are for other publications called "Negotiating the Self"); I just think there needs to be a bit more -- the LA Award nomination if it could be shown to be notable would be enough. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 00:50, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

---

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:05, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

---

• Delete. That the article starts out "a prize winning author" when she has not won any prizes is not reassuring. Being nominated for a prize is not the same as winning a prize , and, save for such exceptions as the Booker shortlist, does not confer notability., considering publication of her novels, which have essentially no library holdings. There is no evidence her poetry is included in anthologies. Her books on teaching, Negotiating the self : identity, sexuality, and emotion in learning to teach, & Pathways through writing blocks in the academic environmenthas respectable library holdings, but I don't think enough to show notability as an academic. DGG ( talk ) 03:47, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
• Delete New author, completely non notable. The reference points to a faculty page. Can't find much else to establish sources. scope_creep talk 19:37, 06 October 2013 (UTC)
• Delete after considering arguments above. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:34, 7 October 2013 (UTC).

: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.