- 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:07, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Mo Moulton
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Mo Moulton ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article does not meet WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO or WP:NACADEMIC. Sources in article and WP:BEFORE revealed no WP:IS WP:RS containing material that meets WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and in depth. BLP articles should strictly follow WP:SIGCOV, WP:RS, WP:V and WP:N sourcing requirements. // Timothy :: talk 02:35, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:04, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:04, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:05, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. The article as nominated already listed two reviews in major newspapers discussing the subject's work directly and in-depth, and I found and added to the article 16 more reviews (including reviews of one more book and five more major-newspaper reviews). An easy pass of WP:AUTHOR. — David Eppstein ( talk) 07:49, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- Reply: If there was SIGCOV about the author, the article would be longer a two sentence author blub from a review.
- Sources in article are reviews of two books, none of them contain SIGCOV about the author. Notability is not inherited from works, except in exceptional circumstances described in AUTHOR #3.
- Subject does not pass WP:AUTHOR which requires a "significant or well-known work or collective body of work" and there is no indication in the reviews and none has been placed in the article that the two items mentioned in the article meet this criteria. If this criteria was met, there would be published information about the subject and not just academic journal reviews about the works. Simply having reviewed works does not meet AUTHOR.
- Additions to the article are WP:REFBOMB: "...to load an article up with as many sources as possible without regard to whether they actually support substantive or noteworthy content about the topic. The deceptive goal here is to boost the number of footnotes present in the article as high as possible, in the hope that it will fool other editors into accepting the topic's notability without properly vetting the degree to which any given source is or isn't actually substantive, reliable, and about the subject."
- I'm sure this is a wonderful author and person, but this is a BLP. BLPs need to strictly follow WP:N guidelines. //
Timothy ::
talk 08:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- Reply. For athletes, we expect SIGCOV about their athletic accomplishments, not their taste in food. For politicians, we expect SIGCOV about their political accomplishments, not their daily jogging workout. What on earth makes you think that for authors, the SIGCOV should be about other things than what they authored? And if you actually read what you quoted of REFBOMB you would see the text "without regard to whether they actually support substantive or noteworthy content about the topic", which obviously is an inaccurate description of this case, so that essay is inapplicable here and your reference to it is unhelpful. And finally, you keep going on about the fine print in AUTHOR #3, but it was really more #4c that I was thinking of. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 08:36, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- There needs to be SIGCOV about the subject. There is no evidence from the reviews that the two works are considered a "significant or well-known work or collective body of work" or have "won significant critical attention" They are normal academic journal reviews. //
Timothy ::
talk 08:50, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- What could "significant critical attention" mean but attention from critics and reviewers? And why are you still quoting AUTHOR#3 as if it's relevant to my opinion when I already told you it isn't? Also, you are not demonstrating your competence at reading by denying the clear statement in my original comment here about major newspaper reviews, or the clear existence of those reviews among the ones listed in the article. — David Eppstein ( talk) 09:10, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- There needs to be SIGCOV about the subject. There is no evidence from the reviews that the two works are considered a "significant or well-known work or collective body of work" or have "won significant critical attention" They are normal academic journal reviews. //
Timothy ::
talk 08:50, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- Reply. For athletes, we expect SIGCOV about their athletic accomplishments, not their taste in food. For politicians, we expect SIGCOV about their political accomplishments, not their daily jogging workout. What on earth makes you think that for authors, the SIGCOV should be about other things than what they authored? And if you actually read what you quoted of REFBOMB you would see the text "without regard to whether they actually support substantive or noteworthy content about the topic", which obviously is an inaccurate description of this case, so that essay is inapplicable here and your reference to it is unhelpful. And finally, you keep going on about the fine print in AUTHOR #3, but it was really more #4c that I was thinking of. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 08:36, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. Books are notable and respected, cover historical figures, societies, and famous authors, plus there's so many reviews of the books in major newspapers like The Times - major articles, not just little reviews. (I started the article.) HistoricalAccountings ( talk) 12:02, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Delete.The subject is clearly an author of two notable books. But WP:NOTINHERITED. Nothing here suggests the subject is notable herself yet. But the sources gathered are sufficient to at the very least stub each book, if this is closed as keep and it hasn't been done so I'll ask the closing admin to userfy this for me so I can stub them myself. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:43, 10 January 2021 (UTC) Withdrawing my vote per arguments and consensus. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:22, 11 January 2021 (UTC)- Keep Passes WP:AUTHOR with room to spare. The question of whether notability is " inherited" is beside the point; this isn't like making an article about somebody because they have a famous relative. People are noteworthy if their actions have been significant, and writing books is what an author does. XOR'easter ( talk) 15:07, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. Generally WP:AUTHOR in practice requires at minimum two books which each receive at least one or two reviews, preferably from different sources. This is easily met here. I don't think the subject yet meets WP:PROF; the academic book with CUP has healthy citations in Google Scholar (32) but there's nothing else yet. The creator of this and other articles is a relatively new editor who is picking, on the whole, notable topics but not always succeeding in demonstrating their significance in the way the 'pedia expects. It would be more positive to attempt to help out, rather than attempt to delete. Espresso Addict ( talk) 16:41, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. 2 books with plenty of reviews is enough for
WP:NAUTHOR.
Piotrus, I think we're all looking at
WP:NAUTHOR criterion 3: the person has created works that have been the primary subject of multiple independent reviews.
Russ Woodroofe (
talk) 18:47, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
-
Russ Woodroofe, Fair point but I still feel uneasy if the entry is basically a CV-entry plus a list of reviews. Does it really add any value to the project? I still think we would be better served by having articles about the books, not the author, in such cases. It's the books that matter, not the author.
Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here 02:32, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
- Piotrus, I think the argument at that point is to try to expand the article over time, rather than delete. Meanwhile, having the author's page serve as an enriched disambiguation page seems to add a bit of value to the project. I do agree with you that most authors with only a single reviewed work should be redirected to an article on the book. Remark that some authors of mainstream-ish fiction, whose notability I think is beyond question, also have rather brief pages outside of the list of books: Patricia Briggs is an example that comes to my mind. Russ Woodroofe ( talk) 09:13, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
-
Russ Woodroofe, Fair point but I still feel uneasy if the entry is basically a CV-entry plus a list of reviews. Does it really add any value to the project? I still think we would be better served by having articles about the books, not the author, in such cases. It's the books that matter, not the author.
Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here 02:32, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
- Keep
per nom.- The subject's two books have received awards, including 2014 Book of the Year by History Today and runner-up for the Royal History Society’s 2015 Whitfield Prize. The subject appeared on C-SPAN's BookTV. The subject has received wide coverage and meets WP:GNG and passes WP:NAUTHOR. - AuthorAuthor ( talk) 21:40, 10 January 2021 (UTC) - Snow Keep, per David Epstein and AuthorAuthor. Several other significant awards listed in the article, including a 2019 Agatha Award and a 2020 Anthony Award. Clearly passes WP:AUTHOR#4(c). Likely passes WP:GNG as well. Nsk92 ( talk) 21:47, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
- Keep The subject is an author of two significant works. -- Gazal world ( talk) 19:53, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:NAUTHOR. — Toughpigs ( talk) 03:10, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Easily passes WP:NAUTHOR. Edwardx ( talk) 11:24, 15 January 2021 (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.