Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patricia Aakhus

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. Sandstein 05:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia Aakhus

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

Non notable writer, unreferenced BLP, unsourced from any reputable sources and none show up on Google. Animatronic Fruit Loop (talk) 18:38, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No dice. Seems to be a new entrant to the world of writing. No coverage other than the books equivalent of IMDB. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed !vote to keep per investigation of others. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Has been reviewed in the Sunday NYTimes Book Review [1], about as notable coverage as books/writers get. While not 100% proof of notability, the likelihood that no other coverage exists for an NYTBR-reviewed writer is so vanishingly small that we should infer notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NYT review not quite enough. Notability may be achieved in future but not yet. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Meets general content requirements. Notable writer google books reveals hits including that she is a notable translator too. Like 90% of our other articles needs expansion and referencing. I do not believe that systematically going through the encyclopedia starting from aa and trying to delete anything which isn't start class as Animatronic is clearly doing is a good idea. Himalayan 11:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment According to WorldCat[2], the writer publishes her fiction under the names of Patricia Aakhus McDowell, and Patricia McDowell -- and uses Patricia Aakus for her academic works. DGG ( talk ) 11:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually you'll find a lot of her academic works in google book under Patricia A. McDowell. Himalayan 11:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

all the more reason for a thorough check before nominating. time to legislate WP:BEFORE. The nom could have found this,too. DGG ( talk ) 12:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep clearly notable with minimal investigation.--Buridan (talk) 17:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The nomination seems correct in this case. At least I could not find enough to establish notability under WP:PROF. And the subject does not seem to pass WP:BIO either. The subject’s most widely held book in libraries, The voyage of Mael Duin's curragh, is held by only 134 libraries according to WorldCat. This book has an Amazon.com sales rank of 1,503,966. Many of the GBs entries are for catalogs of books, like the International Books in Print 2000: Subject Guide. I really do not see the strong evidence that swayed Dennis The Tiger, and that Buridan refers to.--Eric Yurken (talk) 00:19, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional comment. Has anyone read the NY Times piece? It clearly states that the novel by the subject is an adaptation of a story that has been told many times before under various titles, including The Yellow Book of Lecan.--Eric Yurken (talk) 00:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - That is a highly misleading summary of the review, which notes that Aakhus is presenting content never before accurately presented in English. The key language in the NYTBR reads "[I]n this version by an American teacher, writer and actress, pagan elements are properly restored and superfluous additions have been stripped away. What remains is a scholarly yet exciting and vivid rendition of the voyage of Mael Duin, one that has never before been accessible to those without fluent Old Irish. It rings true, and that's what becomes a legend most. (my italics) The Yellow Book of Lecan, mentioned as an earlier version of the story, is a 14th century manuscript including a variant version of the story, not something one might find on the bookshelves of Borders. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I accept a NYT book review as evidence of notability, whether or not they think highly of the book. they include only a small number of titles. But even if one wants another ref to confirm it, there is first, Rocky Mountain News in Gnews,[3]. Remembering that the book is 1990, there are undoubtedly others--GNews is not even approximately complete even for major US newspapers for this period. I consider Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's argument a good one. And in fact, using one of the standard references present in any good library, Wilson's Book Review Digest, an index to reviews in magazines, there is also a review in The Hudson Review v. 43 (Spr 1990), a well-known literary magazine. DGG ( talk ) 18:06, 5 October 2009 (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.