Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liesel Litzenburger

{{AFD help}}

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

:({{Find sources AFD|Liesel Litzenburger}})

Fails WP:AUTHOR. She has written two books that rank around 7-8million on Amazon. Little independent coverage found. Most of the ELs in the article are even DLs. MB 20:57, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:35, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:35, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:36, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:36, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

• Keep WP:AUTHOR says nothing about Amazon ranking, but it does describe notability for someone who has created "a well-known work or collective body of work" that has been the subject of "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". So, an author who has written multiple books that have been reviewed in not only Publishers Weekly [https://www.publishersweekly.com/978-0-307-33955-3] and Kirkus Reviews [https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/liesel-litzenburger/now-you-love-me/] but also The New York Times [https://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/10/books/review/Scheerest.t.html], the Chicago Tribune ({{cite news|title=Novel examines the lives of broken souls struggling to connect|last=Pomerantz|first=Sharon|work=Chicago Tribune|date=August 13, 2006|page=14.8}}), and Entertainment Weekly ({{cite magazine|title=Now You Love Me|last=Armstrong|first=Jennifer|magazine=Entertainment Weekly|issue=923|date=March 2, 2007|page=72}}) would certainly seem to qualify under WP:AUTHOR#3. Bakazaka (talk) 23:36, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
• Keep and improve AfD is not cleanup. In addition to the URLs mentioned by Bakazaka, Martha Stewart has a short-short by LL, calls her a "prize-winning novelist."[https://www.marthastewart.com/287052/love0107wel-t] Let's do the BEFORE before an AfD. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:05, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

• Keep Per the sources identified above by Bakazaka, it appears she easily passes criteria #3 of WP:AUTHOR. PohranicniStraze (talk) 06:05, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
• Keep per above discovery of the sources. — MapSGV (talk) 13:20, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
• Comment The Amazon ranking was meant to suggest there is no "well known body of work". Pointing out the number of DLs in the article is to suggest the author is not that well known either as there tends to be an obvious correlation. If a keep is based solely upon "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews", then such "reviews" should be examined in detail. The "reviews" in Publishers Weekly, Kirkus Reviews don't seem to be reviews at all; they lack comment by the "reviewer" and seem to be just a synopsis of the book - more of a press-release by the publisher for promotional purposes. The The New York Times review gives some actual commentary on the book, so that should count. I can't make judgement on the others since there are no links given. The Martha Stewart "short-short" is written by the author, the only thing said by Stewart is the rather vague mention that she is "a prize-winning novelist" without explaining just what this prize is. All I see here that is one review in the NYT and a lot of self-promotion. I don't think this is keeping with the intent of WP:AUTHOR at all.MB 15:32, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

::Comment re "self-promotion," social media presence and other outreach to readers are typical of many notable authors (e.g. Cory Doctorow and Neil Gaiman). Self promotion is not a character flaw or evidence for lack of notability. HouseOfChange (talk) 22:11, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

:::If a "review" is really a press-release in disguise, is clearly promotional, is not independent (being a synopsis provided by the author/publisher), how can that be evidence of notability (WP:NOTPROMO)). The fact that notable authors promote themselves does not make all authors that do so notable. MB 00:57, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

• Keep Classic case of failure of Nom to run a WP:BEFORE. Articles just needs sourcing, improvement.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:49, 17 December 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.