Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruth Joffre

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. Multiple people proposed a redirect, and that remains an option which could be carried out by anyone. I am closing this as Keep, meaning Keep or Redirect, because there was no sentiment at all for Delete. MelanieN (talk) 03:50, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ruth Joffre[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

~~BLP doesn't seem to meet WP:NBIO - independent coverage is largely focussed on the book (Night Beast) rather than the individual. MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:21, 9 July 2022 (UTC)~~ Nomination withdrawn, thanks to the improvements made by CT55555 and Beccaynr. MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:23, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, and Iowa. ––FormalDude talk 07:24, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She meets WP:AUTHOR criterion 3 due to the multiple independent reviews of her work, examples follow:

Links to other reviews are here: https://bookmarks.reviews/reviews/all/night-beast-and-other-stories/

I have edited the article to mention her other ~~books~~ writing, and to include biographical information so that it is no longer just focussed on one book. CT55555 (talk) 11:24, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CT55555, Joffre does not appear to have written other books beyond her debut collection of short stories; her website indicates she has had other writings included in anthologies - does this seem like an accurate way to describe what you are referring to as "other books"? Beccaynr (talk) 23:47, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, yes, I should have said "publications" I think they are not books. I've corrected it now. Also, I've avoided commenting on our different interpretations of meeting WP:AUTHOR as we see it differently, and I think that's OK, I think the discussion you linked to showed me there are different valid ways to interpret the criteria. Peace. CT55555 (talk) 05:50, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the discussion linked below that you started indicates that multiple reviews for one book with no indications that the work is significant or well-known, and no other basis to support notability means that a redirect to the book is supported by the guidelines. You had asked for feedback from other editors on this topic, and I created an article about the book, removed the redundant material from this article, and it now seems apparent that it is WP:TOOSOON for this article to be supported at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 06:01, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Subject meets Wikipedia notability guidelines, with enough reviews and coverage to prove notability.--SouthernNights (talk) 14:36, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Night Beast (short story collection). After a search online and at the WP library, I started an article for the book because it appears notable per WP:NBOOK, but there does not appear to be sufficient support for WP:BASIC or WP:AUTHOR notability for Joffre at this time. I have not found support for the first part of WP:AUTHOR#3, because I have not found reviews for other works nor indications that her debut collection of short stories is significant or well-known. I included two interviews in the book article, but these do not appear to have sufficient secondary content to support WP:BASIC notability. This article includes a self-published profile for biographical information and links to her own work (and there are more available at the WP library) in addition to the Night Beasts reviews, and it appears to be WP:TOOSOON for an article about Joffre at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 20:07, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is not an essay, but I think this recent discussion at WT:AFD helps support my reasoning on how to interpret the WP:AUTHOR guideline for this author at this time: WP:AUTHOR is two decent book reviews enough? If additional secondary coverage about her and/or her collection of works is available to support this article, I will reconsider my !vote. Beccaynr (talk) 21:03, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I found another interview and incorporated it into the book article: A Seattle writer on girlhood, 'queer sadness' and speculative fiction (Crosscut.com 2020) but I think more secondary support is needed for an author article at this time. A redirect preserves the article history and will allow this article to be further developed when her notability is more clearly supported per WP:BASIC or WP:AUTHOR. Also, from my view, indications of a significant or well-known work could include winning a notable award, appearing on bestseller lists, receiving wide attention from national and/or international media, as well as other indications suggested by editors in the above-cited discussion. Beccaynr (talk) 15:00, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I had closed this as Keep but was asked to relist this AFD discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:45, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Iowa, and Sexuality and gender. Beccaynr (talk) 01:02, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My support for a redirect is also based on WP:NOT policy, because there is a book article and the sources currently available do not appear to also support a BLP per WP:NAUTHOR or WP:BASIC. With the BLP supported mostly by primary and nonindependent sources, the second prong of WP:N appears to support a redirect per WP:NOT policy, because the BLP appears promotional. Beccaynr (talk) 03:09, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:51, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Beccaynr. Will allow for easy recreation if the author becomes more notable later... Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:16, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Beccaynr/Eddie891 & close ASAP. There's no reason to keep this open. Let's move along. Buffs (talk) 15:24, 4 August 2022 (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.