Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samantha Henderson

: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 delete. While the keep comments are more numerous, thay are not based on any policy, while the delete comments have a well-grounded policy basis. Kevin (talk) 00:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

=[[Samantha Henderson]]=

{{notaballot}}

:{{la|Samantha Henderson}} – (View AfD)(View log)

:({{findsources|Samantha Henderson}})

Doesn't seem to meet WP:AUTHOR. Rd232 talk 13:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --Cyclopia (talk) 21:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Seems to fit criteria for "minimal notability" compared to other similar entries. Vermiculite (talk) 01:37, 24 September 2009 (UTC) — Vermiculite (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Comment I'm assuming the notation that I've made few other edits/comments is meaningful, so to be clear: I'm the page creator, it's my first page, and I decided to make it because I saw Samantha Henderson noted in a variety of places where I was performing other edits. Ultimately, every editor has to start somewhere, and I would just like to iterate that though I am new, I'm not a schill, I do not have a conflict of interest in this matter (I do not know the author personally, and we are not friends), and I do feel that this is relevant material. Short story authors seem to get short shrift on the notability side of things, as well, when in fact, it is frequently more difficult to get a short story published than it is a novel (and novels still aren't easy to get published), and the 20,000 people who read, say, Asimov's or Realms of Fantasy is a higher number than the people who would buy a mass market paperback novel (typically, 5,000-15,000 would be a good pull there). Further, there are pages for less notable people that were given a pass, and while I have spent enough time around Wikipedia to know that consistency is impossible with so many people involved, I would like to state that it is clear to anyone in the science fiction community that Samantha Henderson's achievement is far beyond those others. Finally, I am comfortable with moving this to my sandbox until such time as the author's notability is ironclad, but I would like to hear from the detractors on these issues. Vermiculite (talk) 17:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Samantha Henderson is an extremely talented up and coming author and the entry meets "minimal notability" criteria. Inkbabies (talk) 02:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC) — Inkbabies (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

::*This was this user's second edit, the first being at Talk:Samantha Henderson. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Samantha_Henderson&oldid=315820183] Rd232 talk 09:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment Being an "up and coming author" is the sort of argument that WP:CRYSTAL is designed to to cut off at the pass -- she needs to have arrived to be notable. Whether she has, is what we're here to debate. —Quasirandom (talk) 03:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

::*is collecting the reviews of her book helpful to this? 141.211.172.117 (talk) 14:54, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

:::*Could be. If you can source the article, you're welcome. --Cyclopia (talk) 15:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep If this article is deleted, it will just have to be reinstated; this writer's career has begun to accelerate. An announcement of her inclusion in an important invitational (only selected professionals) anthology was just going out all over the science fiction world yesterday. Link here: http://norilanabooks.livejournal.com/75597.html 75.80.113.223 (talk) 15:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC) — 75.80.113.223 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete by my understanding of sf notability, this isnt quite there. the publishers listed are not top rank (roc, ace, bantam, etc), and only one novel. lots of the material in the article is utterly nonnotable. easy enough to copy to a sandbox, trim back, and just wait for more notability, even if its only months from now (second novel, interview in Locus, film actually made). we go on notability right now or in the past, not future, even for sf.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment As per above, I object to the notion that novels are more meaningful than a record of high quality short story publication, particularly in regards to number of readers and meaning of the achievement. However, your comment is pretty hilarious, nonetheless. ("we go on notability right now or in the past, not future, even for sf.") Vermiculite (talk) 17:53, 6 October 2009 (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.