Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sandra Kynes

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 no consensus. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) Bryce (talk | contribs) 02:38, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sandra Kynes

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

Article about a pagan author. She appears in various catalogues and online pagan magazines, as do plenty of other writers. No evidence of notability per WP:AUTHOR or even WP:GNG. Why does she need an encyclopaedia article? andy (talk) 19:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As has been said elsewhere, this is a successful published writer, not just someone who "appears in various catalogues and online pagan magazines". Had she had only one book published and it had sunk without trace I might agree about the lack of notability. As it is, she has had 6 published and they are available internationally.Plingsby (talk) 15:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 19:58, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there's a detailed book review of A Year of Ritual on The Wiccan Pagan Times of Sept 26, 2004 - quite critical but says the book's of interest to beginners. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:10, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the author reckons that this article can be deleted - see comments here andy (talk) 23:23, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no argument then. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:46, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you delete this article? It contains useful information, is clearly notable and is useful for research. It has been substantially enhanced since the original placement. I do notice a tendency by one of the contributors here to mark huge numbers of new articles for deletion, sometimes even speedy deletion, without any immediate consideration as to value. Plingsby (talk) 09:44, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Er, because Andy said you wanted it deleted, so I'm happy to strike my delete; we have 2 reasonable RS, one interview and the author's website, which I'd say was just about enough to show existence and notability. If you can find one more RS that would bring the article home and dry. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:07, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to disagree but one of those "reliable sources" is simply a catalogue entry. It proves that the books exist but not that the author is notable. IMHO this is very well short of WP:AUTHOR and not even approaching WP:GNG. She may indeed be such a well-known author that she needs her own encyclopaedia article, but I don't see anything even on her publisher's website to make her stand out from the crowd. andy (talk) 11:05, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No no no, not the catalogue entry, there's one source in the article and one listed above. The cat entry proves ~~nothing and should be removed~~ only that the book has been translated, in fact I'll do it now and copy in the RS above. There are 2 RS, and there are bio facts on the author's website, that's all as I said. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:27, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:40, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Successful author. Reviews, references, meets WP:Author. The Steve 21:01, 21 January 2012 (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.