- 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. Liz Read! Talk! 22:39, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Katherine Salant (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)
WP:MILL journalist, does not fulfill WP:NJOURNALIST criteria. Broc (talk) 21:26, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Broc (talk) 21:26, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Journalism, Massachusetts, Virginia, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:50, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Enough coverage of her books to pass AUTHOR [1], [2], [3] Oaktree b (talk) 22:12, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:28, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep Sources provided by Oaktree b above are sufficient to satisfy WP:AUTHOR. Sal2100 (talk) 21:20, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Sal2100 Per WP:NAUTHOR
The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews
. So far I see one independent review posted by Oaktree b, and there is one extremely short blurb in Publisher's Weekly as mentioned below. No other independent reviews have been found, so I wonder how you think the criterion is fulfilled? Broc (talk) 15:11, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Changing from previous !vote after re-evaluation based on Broc's comments immediately above. Sal2100 (talk) 20:12, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete My main concerns are 1) that there are no independent sources and 2) I cannot find any sources for the awards. The Houston Chronicle source on the last one does not verify that award. One book got a review in Publishers' Weekly but that isn't really enough. Lamona (talk) 02:24, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Oaktree b pointed out some additional coverage above, of which one is an independent review in a published source. The other two are coverage of her books in newspapers for which she writes/wrote. Two reviews for a book are in my opinion far from sufficient to fulfill WP:NAUTHOR. Broc (talk) 15:07, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I would be more enthused if those reviews were in major publications. The Gadsden Times and Sarasota Herald-Tribune don't impress me. And the Lodi review says: "...I have never encountered a book as hard to read as this one" and goes on to pan the book in other aspects. So, no, I don't think these sources are sufficient. And may I say that there is nothing in the policies that says: any 2 reviews = author notability. First, reviews can be negative, so we should read them and not just count them. Then, there is a matter of IMPORT. The actual policy criteria at WP:AUTHOR are pretty intense - but they come down to the question of whether the person has made a significant contribution to a field of study or an area of art, and whether there is evidence that the contribution is recognized by peers. Writing two books on how to buy and sell property - books that do not appear to have gotten national attention - doesn't rise to that level, IMO. Lamona (talk) 05:37, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The delete arguments do seem a bit stronger based on Wikipedia policy, but a clearer consensus might be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 21:32, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and keep improving per WP:HEY. Easily meets WP:BASIC and likely even WP:GNG per the sources provided by Oaktree b. Katherine Salant is a nationally syndicated journalist, so one could argue that she satisfies WP:JOURNALIST by definition (in any case, she is far from WP:MILL). But even if you don't buy that argument, the book reviews and feature articles about her are more than enough and seem balanced (and largely positive about Salant's analysis, even though most reviewers disliked the typeset and book design) – e.g., Chicago Tribune review which calls her advice "absolutely sound" with useful tips for averting home-building disasters;; the Robert Bruss review in the Orlando Sentinel titled "DON'T JUDGE A BOOK BY ITS COVER -- THE CONTENTS ARE SUPERB"; and the Ottawa Citizen review, "Information gems: New advice book successfully crosses border, makes good sense to Canadians looking for a new house" – which have all been added to the article now. Pinging Sal2100 for possible reconsideration. Cielquiparle (talk) 13:58, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Moving to Keep, thanks Cielquiparle for the good work. Broc (talk) 14:08, 7 July 2024 (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.