From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. (non-admin closure) b uidh e 04:55, 24 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Judith Vigna

Judith Vigna (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. No significant coverage in reliable sources. Web hits amount to a few mocking blog posts and a couple of brief mentions in articles. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 17:10, 4 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 17:10, 4 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lightburst ( talk) 22:48, 4 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lightburst ( talk) 22:48, 4 March 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete not enough sources to show notability. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 21:30, 4 March 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as not meeting WP:AUTHOR. She is an American author, not English. There are reviews of her books at the New York Times and the Guardian, but not enough for an article. StarryGrandma ( talk) 23:21, 4 March 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: she is covered in both the 1999 and 1979 editions of Something About the Author (hmm, red link, might see what I can do about that), so anyone with access to either of those will be able to expand the article. I've added a couple of PW reviews and the Observer piece found by StarryGrandma, and added the Children's Literature Wikiproject banner to alert interested editors. Pam D 11:21, 5 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To give editors a chance to evaluate PamD's findings and changes, as the pro-delete comments came prior to that.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KaisaL ( talk) 05:41, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidh e 06:09, 19 March 2020 (UTC) reply
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.