Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Menna van Praag

: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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:52, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

=[[Menna van Praag]]=

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

:({{Find sources AFD|Menna van Praag}})

Self-published author with minimal secondary coverage. Blackguard 06:50, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:25, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:25, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:25, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

~~Delete~~ per nom - David Gerard (talk) 09:48, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
withdrawing for now given evidence below - David Gerard (talk) 10:04, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Keep There are a number of published reviews of her works (which are published at at least by Penguin; see [http://www.penguin.com/read/book-clubs/the-house-at-the-end-of-hope-street/9780143124948 here]); see [http://www.heroesandheartbreakers.com/blogs/2016/02/first-look-menna-van-praag-witches-of-cambridge-february-9-2016 here], [http://thereviewbroads.com/2016/03/book-review-the-witches-of-cambridge.html/ here], [http://www.compulsivereader.com/2013/07/22/a-review-of-the-house-at-the-end-of-hope-street-by-menna-van-praag/ here] and more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pingumeister (talk • contribs) 12:13, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Penguin is something. The first is a user-generated site, the second is a blog, the third is user-generated ... do we have any reviews in RSes? - David Gerard (talk) 13:53, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
They are not user-generated. They aren't written by notable authors, but I don't see why that's a problem. -- Pingumeister^(talk) 22:03, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Draft instead because she is in fact notable, considering over 3,600 library holdings and they were by a major publisher, that in itself is sufficient, the sourcing will have to be improved, however. SwisterTwister talk 20:11, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Leaning Keep -- is NY Journal of Books RS? [http://www.nyjournalofbooks.com/book-review/dress-shop-dreams link to review]. If yes, may work towards satisfying WP:NAUTHOR. Unless I'm mistaken, Ballantine Books is not being self-published. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:18, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:10, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Keep Per Pingumeister and coffman's comments and sources. Lourdes 13:52, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Keep. sufficient library holdings and reviews. DGG ( talk ) 00:03, 20 October 2016 (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.