Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terri Clark (author)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Hersfold (t/a/c) 19:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Terri Clark (author) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Appears to fail WP:CREATIVE. Only two works, one a book and one a contribution to an anthology. No indication found in search that the person is widely cited or that they meet any criteria in WP:CREATIVE. Taroaldo (talk) 19:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree and delete per above. T-95 (talk) 19:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Her book is publshed by HarperCollins and can be found in your local WalMart, Borders, Barnes and Noble, etc. It may be a trashy teen novel but it has wide circulation.Inmysolitude (talk) 09:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Article does not establish notability. I don't think every author of every random 'trashy teen novel' is notable just based on that. 129.105.104.246 (talk) 17:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - She has one novel published. I could find no articles written about her. I could find no significant reviews of her work. The most substantial review I could find was this very brief item from a monthly magazine proclaiming they review 250 books per issue. There are no reliable sources to establish notability, nor does the material indicate that her work is well-known. -- Whpq (talk) 17:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pastor Theo (talk) 00:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WorldCat currently shows only 57 copies, picayune for a current teen novel. --there may yet be more, and if there are eventually 3rd party reviews, it might possibly become notable. But romantic times is just the sort of nonselective review medium that does not serve as a Reliable source. DGG (talk) 01:33, 20 March 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.