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 both.  Sandstein  23:25, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heidi Wyss[edit]

Heidi Wyss (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Doesn't appear to meet WP:N, and seems to fail WP:CREATIVE. No hits in Google News or Books. The only sources in the article are to a WomenWriters.net review and the The Secret Society of Lesbian Propellerheads main page which leads to this review on literateweb.com of the book, which is used as the assertion of notability. Neither of the sites that contain any actual content look reliable, and both focus solely on the book. Speaking of the book:

Gormglaith (novel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Doesn't appear to meet inclusion standards either. It meets none of the criteria listed at WP:BK. The lack of an ISBN is a non-starter, actually. The only sources in this article are the WomenWriters.net review noted above and this skepchick.org interview with Wyss, which also looks to be of questionable reliability. لennavecia 21:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Ms. Wyss fails the notability guidelines for creative professionals; I have found no useful information in JSTOR, Google News' archives, or Google Books about them. They do not appear to be cited (or even acknowledged) by any peers, have not pioneered any concepts that are important to the history of English literature, and have never had any of their works win significant critical attention. Gormglaith has not been covered in any manner aside from this review on a blog with volunteer writers and no editorial oversight; the author of the review has never been the subject of interest from mainstream media or scholarly publications aside from a trivial mention in the San Francisco Chronicle. This review is by another unremarkable author and is published in Quiet Mountain Essays, a publication with little prominence and no impact factor to the best of my knowledge. The novel has no ISBN and appears to be published exclusively online by Literate Web, a vanity press. Additionally, some of the reviews on the publisher's site appear fabricated, such as the quotes attributed to Liz Henry, Lili Pintea-Reed, and All Night Surfing. Both articles should be deleted on the grounds that they are fluff pieces for a non-notable person which cannot be developed into respectable encyclopedia articles. east718 // talk // email // 21:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Provisional delete of Heidi Wyss. I have not been able to find any significant coverage of the topic in independent RS's (German or English) through searching online. I am willing to reconsider if evidence such coverage is forthcoming. As for Gormglaith (novel), the review in Quiet Mountain essays may be reliable - it's a journal with an ISSN and so on. Does anyone know if the "essays" are peer-reviewed or simply opinion pieces? Is there editorial oversight? Skomorokh 21:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Yes, QME does have an editorial and QC process: see here for details. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • In that case I am certainly going to give the article the benefit of the doubt and provisional keep of Gormglaith, as the review constitutes significant coverage. Skomorokh 15:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just to point out that criteria 1 of WP:BK reads "The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience. (Emphasis mine) لennavecia 16:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Nahnahnahnah just a guideline. There's more than enough coverage in that source to write an article of decent length that is neutral and verifiable. The only question is the reliability of that source - not fully independent of the subject (as the reviewer discloses), but not related enough to rule it right out. Skomorokh 16:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Still fails the "multiple" part. A single review in an obscure online journal does not meet those criteria. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • The purpose of such guidelines is to ensure articles are in compliance with our five pillars. If the content of one source is sufficient to flesh out an article, then I don't see why a second is absolutely necessary, though I'd be interesting to hear arguments to the contrary. Regards, Skomorokh 18:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • I don't think the issue is whether it provides enough information to flesh out the article; it's that having only one source, especially one that is not fully independent of the subject, doesn't do much to establish notability.SheepNotGoats (Talk) 18:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • If by "notability" you mean importance, then that is completely irrelevant. This is an encyclopaedia, not a popularity contest. If by notability you mean what WP:GNG means—that the topic has been noted by reliable sources—then having sufficient verifiable coverage to write a decent-length is all that it is about. I share some of your unease about the combination of the source being our only one and the small cloud over independence, but that's not at all enough of a reason to deprive our readers of an article on the topic. Sincerely, Skomorokh 18:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • "Nahnahnahnah just a guideline." ... "but that's not at all enough of a reason to deprive our readers of an article on the topic." Sooo, it's cool to throw out accepted standards for ILIKEIT? Hmm. I've helped write a couple of articles that at first glance one may call into question as far as notability, but then they're so well sourced that they both got to GA. It's not about popularity, it's about being recognized by reliable sources. One website does not notability make, guideline or not. لennavecia 07:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • No, I am saying that as far as reflecting what our policies require, WP:BK is a poorer guide than WP:GNG. "It's not about popularity, it's about being recognized by reliable sources". Agreed, and no one has yet proffered a convincing argument as to why Quiet Mountain Essays is not a reliable source, or why more than one source is necessary. In that climate, I cannot support deletion. Skomorokh 16:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Here are some reasons why the QME article is not reliable enough to serve as the only source (although #1 should really be enough):
                1. The author knows the subject of the article personally.
                2. At one time, QME published all articles received [1], so we don't know whether the article in question was even submitted to a review process.
                3. QME does not provide information on how articles are currently selected for publication, or on the credentials of the people doing the selecting (and only one individual is mentioned by name on the website).
                4. Unless I'm reading it wrong, men are not allowed to submit essays [2] (ok, that doesn't really affect it being a reliable source, I just think it's funny).

SheepNotGoats (Talk) 16:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks SheepNotGoats, this is the approach I was looking for. Point 1, we already know, and the fact that the author announces right off their relationship with Wyss is more encouraging than discouraging on the reliability front. This would be a serious concern if we were dealing with a controversial topic - BLP, politics, legal situation etc., but for a uncontroversial niche book I'm not convinced our neutrality is seriously compromised. Points 2 and 3 are in the right direction, but only underline our ignorance of the source's reliability rather than positive indication of the unreliability of this particular review. On point 4, the fact that they are chauvinists does not seem to speak to reliability. The review passes the sniff test - it seems quite unlikely from reading it that the author is lying, incompetent or biased, and if I were deciding whether or not to read the book, this review is something that would certainly influence my decision. There is enough uncertainty here to make me inclined towards a weak keep, but not enough decisive indications of unreliability to move me to delete. Skomorokh 17:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete due to no substantial coverage in third-party sources. The only assertion of notability in the article is a single novel that doesn't even appear in WorldCat, which means that the book probably does not meet WP:BK. SheepNotGoats (Talk) 21:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both, there don't appear to be reliable independent sources showing notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 22:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm off to WP:SF yo see if they know of appropriate coverage.--Peter cohen (talk) 10:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep both. Very important book in the Secret Society of Lesbian Propellerheads. Apocrypha Discordia pales in comparison ;) Pcap ping 14:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both - non-notable writer without substantial coverage; fails all notability tests. Book lacks substantial coverage and has no impact of any kind. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Provisional Delete both - unless someone comes up with more sources, this article doesn't meet the inclusion criteria.--Peter cohen (talk) 16:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• What the hell?!? delete both. How is it that a longtime editor does not know better? Friday (talk) 20:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both non-notable. --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note I've notified my colleagues at the Feminism Task Force of this discussion; I hope it's not canvassing and that someone there might be able to shed some light on the real-world significance of the topics. Skomorokh 22:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both due to the lack of substantial coverage from reliable sources, neither article meets the applicable inclusion criterion. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 21:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both: Neither the article satisfies the notability requirements. ^Law _shoot! 06:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• comment I just want to point out this reidrect page Gormglaith (novel) which should be dealt with in the same way as the main Gormglaith page.--Peter cohen (talk) 18:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 06:12, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep both: I, once again, mourn the woefully high standards set for proof of notability on Wikipedia. I've nominated many bands for deletion who have never released an album or single, basing their notability entirely on their future plans. I've nominated authors who haven't yet created anything, basing their notability on webcomics that they have in development. Wikipedia is full of articles about artists who have created nothing of note, and perhaps that is why so many editors have a presumption of non-notability rather than a presumption of notability. I am of the opinion that being a published author, or contributing some significant creative work to popular culture (popular commercials, viral videos, etc.), is grounds for notability. Yes, I realize that millions of books are published each year, which opens the door to articles about thousands of published authors each year. Is that a problem? Shouldn't Wikipedia hope to be an inclusive and invaluable resource in the fields of books, movies, authors and directors? The only issue I have, and the reason for my weak keep, is that I haven't found any evidence that the book has been in print. It was supposedly published in 2005, but I can't find any copies on Amazon. I did find it as a free eBook here. Anyone can create an eBook, so having one does not make one a published author. That said, with the rise and bright future of devices such as Kindle, printed books will likely decline in popularity in favour of electronic versions in the near future (much to the relief of trees everywhere). In that case, the distinction becomes one of "published" (by a reputable commercial publisher) vs. self-published, which any Tom, Dick and Harry can do. On the other hand, should the fact that the book is free, licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works License, count against her? Her generosity should be encouraged, and an increasing number of authors, artists, musicians, game designers, photographers, and members of other creative fields are making their works freely available under CC licenses. Guns N' Roses officially debuted Chinese Democracy on MySpace, where it's available for free streaming. Is it not a "published" album because they were kind enough to make it free? It comes down to this: if Gormglaith had been published, in physical form, or in electronic form by a regular publisher, it would undeniably make Heidi Wyss a published author and, therefor, notable, and I will vigorously defend the notability of any published author, musician, artist, or other significant contributor to popular culture. In this case I can only find evidence of Gormglaith as a free eBook, but one that is 63 482 words (200 pages) and reviewed by a notable publication. Though only barely, that meets my criteria for being a published author. DOSGuy (talk) 18:32, 5 December 2008 (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.