Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lisa Trutkoff Trumbauer

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. I have not renamed as that's a question that can be handled subsequently, but consensus is clear Star Mississippi 02:01, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Lisa Trutkoff Trumbauer

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

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Lisa Trutkoff Trumbauer (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)

Have searched in vain for better sources. Fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. Edwardx (talk) 20:10, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, and Science fiction and fantasy. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:29, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

• The article doesn`t cover WP:NCOPR and deserves to be removed - *Delete --Bigneeerman (talk) 06:07, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Bigneeerman. NCORP is not the correct notability criteria to look at. Like @CT55555 pointed out, NCORP is for organizations and companies. The correct criteria are GNG and AUTHOR, which @Edwardx already listed above. --Kbabej (talk) 23:05, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

• Comments I don't understand the delete vote above, an author should not need to pass WP:NCORP as she is not an organisation or a company. I've improved the article, more than doubled it. That said, I could not find any significant coverage. I added some biographical information and one short book review. I guess children's books don't attract long reviews. I'm hoping others find more. It seems she has created a large body of work, non-independent review say over-200 books, but I did not find that stated in independent reliable sources. CT55555 (talk) 12:35, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

• Delete. The sourcing just isn't there. The "Dog Days Reading" source is a one-sentence mention without a byline; the entire sentence is: "Fantasy fans who dig dragons can can enjoy the latest fun in A Practical Guide to Dragon Riding (Wizards/Mirrorstone $12.95)" That was the only hit on newspapers.com, and the rest of my searches couldn't find anything resembling sigcov. --Kbabej (talk) 23:13, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

• Delete Also I think delete is the unavoidable conclusion here. I searched for sources, added some in, but none are significant. I'll reverse my decision quickly if anyone can find significant sources, so please say if you do. CT55555 (talk) 23:18, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
• Keep and rename to Lisa Trumbauer. Seems very notable; 33,713 library holdings is a serious notability indicator. I found a detailed Cengage entry [1] which in turn lists some "independent reviews". Not sure why we want to delete as many articles as possible. 65.92.160.108 (talk) 08:42, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Meets WP:NAUTHOR point 4 based on significant library holdings and some reviews given below:

• Booklist, September 1, 2003, Carolyn Phelan, review of Why We Need Child Care Workers and Why We Need Construction Workers, p. 126.

• School Library Journal, December, 1999, Kristina Aaronson, review of Click It! Computer Fun: Math, p. 129; February, 2000, Yapha Nussbaum Mason, review of Click It!: Computer Fun Halloween, p. 115; July, 2000, Yapha Nussbaum Mason, review of Cool Sites: Homework Help for Kids on the Net, p. 123; July, 2002, Eldon Younce, review of The Life Cycle of a Chicken, p. 112; June, 2003, John Peters, review of Exploring Animal Rights and Animal Welfare, p. 92. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.160.108 (talk) 08:46, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Strong Keep. Now I see that she is better known without her middle name, easy to argue to keep. Academic reviews of her more science based children's books follows. I wonder if she uses her middle name for the dungeons and dragons themed stuff and the shorter version for the more science stuff:

1. Mesires, Maria. Science and Children, vol. 45, no. 5, 2008, pp. 68–68. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/43174832. Accessed 19 Jul. 2022.
2. Reynolds, Ann. The American Biology Teacher, vol. 65, no. 8, 2003, pp. 637–637. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/4451579. Accessed 19 Jul. 2022.
3. Fredericks, Anthony. Science and Children, vol. 41, no. 1, 2003, pp. 65–65. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/43172076. Accessed 19 Jul. 2022. CT55555 (talk) 12:21, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

• Keep per findings by IP user 65.92.160.108 and per new input from CT55555. BOZ (talk) 14:36, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
• Keep due to reviews to meet WP:NAUTHOR as listed above. -Kj cheetham (talk) 14:58, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
• Keep, per the arguments above. /Julle (talk) 23:55, 23 July 2022 (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.