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 The result was keep WP:SNOW‎ . (non-admin closure) Bruxton (talk) 02:18, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A. R. Morlan[edit]

A. R. Morlan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. Almost every source cited is either a primary source or an obituary, neither of which can be used to establish notability. The only secondary source cited contains only two sentences about the subject of this article; this is not significant coverage (WP:SIGCOV). I can't find any examples of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. This article was nominated for deletion before but was kept because one of her stories was included in an anthology that featured a number of notable writers; however, since Wikipedia does not recognize 'notability by association', this is not a reason to keep the article. It should also be noted that not every author featured in this anthology has a Wikipedia page. JMB1980 (talk) 22:51, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Illinois, and Wisconsin. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:22, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. A search found no reliable sources that show notability. The only obits that turned up were on blogs or in unknown pubs. Fails WP:GNG as notability has not been shown, and it does not pass WP:BASIC. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 02:16, 16 April 2023 (UTC) Keep Changing !vote as notability is shown in obits and other reliable sources as noted by other editors. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 23:25, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, plentiful coverage indicating notability, as noted in the overwhelming !vote at the previous AfD, and an article in The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction, not previously included, which I've added as an EL. PamD 09:15, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  An encyclopedia is a tertiary source. Secondary sources are needed to prove notability. JMB1980 (talk) 20:36, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Encyclopedia articles are based on primary or secondary sources. If based on primary sources, then the entry is a secondary source. If based on secondary sources, then it's proof of the existence of secondary sources. pburka (talk) 20:47, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Okay, then the Wikipedia page should cite some of these secondary sources.JMB1980 (talk) 15:43, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Please review WP:NOTCLEANUP and WP:BLUDGEON. pburka (talk) 20:33, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

JMB1980, before you bring up any more AfDs you need to study Wikipedia policies and guidelines. In particular, the no original research policy states point blank that "Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and avoid novel interpretations of primary sources." So yes, Wikipedia policy states that both secondary and tertiary sources can be used to establish notability.--SouthernNights (talk) 11:37, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:USETERTIARY. It is, in fact, you who lacks knowledge of Wikipedia guidelines and policies. JMB1980 (talk) 15:45, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:USETERTIARY isn't a Wikipedia policy or guidelines. It's an essay. At the top of the essay it even says "This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines." And then in the essay's first paragraph there's a link to the Wikipedia:No original research § Primary, secondary and tertiary sources policy I referenced above. I don't know what else to say if you can't tell the difference between an essay and actual Wikipedia policies and guidelines.--SouthernNights (talk) 16:01, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PSTS: 'Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources, and to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources'. WP:GNG: '"Sources" should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability'. Wikipedia clearly gives more weight to secondary sources. JMB1980 (talk) 17:55, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No one if arguing against secondary sources being preferred. However, tertiary sources can be used in articles and to prove notability. Also worth noting that almost all the sources shared below proving the subject's notability are secondary sources, including the entry about the subject in the St. James Guide to Horror, Ghost & Gothic Writers.--SouthernNights (talk) 19:40, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

St. James Guide to Horror, Ghost & Gothic Writers looks to be a tertiary source None of them appear to be secondary sources except for the ones that mention her in one or two sentences. JMB1980 (talk) 01:00, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction entry by itself is enough to proveout her in St. James Guide to Horror, Ghost & Gothic Writers and Gale Literature: Contemporary Authors plus being a finalist for a major award and she way more than meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. As a side note, I don't understand why this article was brought up for a second AfD only a year after the previous AfD had an overwhelming consensus for keep. --[[User:SouthernNigh notability per Wikipedia guidelines. However, I also found academic articles mentioning her work in Science Fiction Studies and reviews of her work in places like Publishers Weekly, Cemetery Dance, The Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction and Locus Magazine. Add in that there are biographies abts|SouthernNights]] (talk) 13:58, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. What policy or guidelines says that obituaries don't count towards notability? pburka (talk) 14:06, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such policy and they absolutely do count towards notability.--SouthernNights (talk) 14:14, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I didn't realize until now that JMB1980 created the original AfD on A. R. Morlan in March 2022 and, after that discussion achieved a nearly unanimous consensus to keep, created this AfD just over a year later. Yes, there is no clear Wikipedia policy against doing this (while speedy keep states an AfD can be closed if an editor makes "nominations of the same page with the same arguments immediately after they were strongly rejected in a recently closed deletion discussion," a year doesn't count as immediately). However, the same editor bringing an article up for AfD after it was overwhelming kept a year before strikes me as going against the spirit of AfD discussions.--SouthernNights (talk) 16:28, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Considering the article was kept based almost entirely on a 'notability by association' argument, and more than a year later still didn't cite a single quality secondary source, a second nomination was warranted. JMB1980 (talk) 20:39, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. The previous discussion was very clear with editors agreeing with the multiple reliable sources shared by Beccaynr that proved the subject's notability. That's why so many of the editors referenced the info shared by Beccaynr. Instead of listening to that clear consensus you brought this article up for a new AfD. Almost as if you were shopping around for a different outcome. That's not how the AfD process works.--SouthernNights (talk) 21:12, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then changes should have been made to the article to bring it into compliance with WP:GNG guidelines. JMB1980 (talk) 15:47, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As it states in Wikipedia guidelines, "notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article." Notability of an article's subject exists separate from the state of the article.--SouthernNights (talk) 16:18, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

True, but I haven't seen any examples of significant coverage in quality secondary sources, inside or outside of this article's citations. I've only seen primary sources, tertiary sources and reviews of an anthology that only include one or two sentences about her. JMB1980 (talk) 18:04, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, almost all the sources I shared proving notability are secondary sources, including the reviews in Publishers Weekly, Cemetery Dance, The Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction and Locus Magazine and the entry about her in St. James Guide to Horror, Ghost & Gothic Writers. The Gale Literature: Contemporary Authors entry for the subject is a tertiary source but that can still be used in the article and to prove notability.--SouthernNights (talk) 19:44, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The only Cemetery Dance page about her that I could find was a blog, Publisher's Weekly only had one sentence about her, I couldn't find anything for The Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction, and she was published in Locus Magazne, meaning it isn't independent of the subject of the article. JMB1980 (talk) 01:07, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Locus Magazine is the leading criticism magazine of the SF/F genre and absolutely independent of the subject. She wasn't published in the magazine -- they published her obituary. With regards to your comment above about St. James Guide to Horror, Ghost & Gothic Writers, that entry contains "analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources," as described under secondary sources at Wikipedia:No original research. That means it's a secondary source. Same with regards to Cemetery Dance, F&SF, and all the other citations people have shared. I am done discussing this with you b/c your level of misunderstanding everything everyone says is astounding.--SouthernNights (talk) 11:53, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia defines tertiary sources as 'publications such as encyclopedias or other compendia that sum up secondary and primary sources'; that seems to fit St. James Guide to Horror, Ghost & Gothic Writers. The Cemetery Dance was a blog post, and blogs aren't reliable sources. I still don't know what the F&SF source is. JMB1980 (talk) 17:02, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Profiles of the author in reliable encyclopedias and other sources (see per SouthernNights above) and also Supernatural literature of the world : an encyclopedia. -- Jaireeodell (talk) 19:39, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Nothing has changed since the last discussion. Encyclopedias and obituaries are, contrary to the nominator's view, perfectly acceptable sources and strong indicators of notability. pburka (talk)
• Keep Her anthologies are published in major publications alongside notable authors and furthermore she won a major literary award. DanishGirIInheaven (talk) 22:32, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: per SouthernNights, plenty of refs to show notability.  // Timothy :: talk  17:31, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Meets WP:AUTHOR.ResonantDis_tortion 05:34, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: per the fourth criteria of WP:NAUTHOR. The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. Some of her works has won significant critical attention. Thilsebatti (talk) 06:28, 20 April 2023 (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.