Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elise Matthesen

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. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:00, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Elise Matthesen

[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)

No coverage in any reliable sources, and I looked quite a bit. The references on this page are mostly sourced to the subject's own writing, one reference is an obituary of someone else's that mentions her once, another contains a brief mention of her, and the 2009 Fantasy Awards page does not appear to mention her at all. In other words, there's nothing. SteamboatPhilly (talk) 18:25, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I corrected the bad link to her World Fantasy Award nomination, which was sui generis. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:42, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If all she has is a nomination for a "World Fantasy Award" award (and no win), how on earth do you justify a vote to keep this article alive? There's no way that nomination makes her worthy of an article. And nothing else does either. Your "keep" vote is there without any basis at all. SteamboatPhilly (talk) 03:58, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 18:48, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 18:48, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 18:48, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 18:48, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Newimpartial (talk) 02:19, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW I've added her two short stories. –84.46.53.123 (talk) 02:19, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:20, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per OrangeMike - the article is fairly well-sourced, and I think that the WFA nomination is a reasonable claim of notability. -208.81.148.195 (talk) 19:44, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AUTHOR says won, not nominated. –84.46.52.26 (talk) 20:05, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it doesn't. The phrase is "won significant critical attention". Nomination for a major award certaibly fits that bill. Newimpartial (talk) 20:36, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Admittedly I only knew two of the three awards praised by The Guardian on World Fantasy Award, and an "awards" section without award makes me nervous… –84.46.52.26 (talk) 21:52, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How does ONE nomination (and not a win) count as "significant critical attention"? That's absurd. SteamboatPhilly (talk) 18:58, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OTOH you now know why I suggested PROD instead of AfD.

-84.46.53.175 (talk) 21:13, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there is a whole chapter on the article's subject in a scholarly anthology. I don't know how much more reliable the available sources could be, per WP:BEFORE. Newimpartial (talk) 22:14, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the Queer Twin Cities source constitutes in-depth coverage in an independent scholarly work, and the WFA nomination is a mark of significant attention (which is clear if you look at what the award is, and what she was nominated for). Taken together, those are enough for a keep !vote from me. --bonadea contributions talk 16:04, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep It is a tad obvious this article meets notability. Capt. Milokan (talk) 22:46, 29 April 2019 (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.