Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Merc Fenn Wolfmoor

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. There is no consensus to delete this article (non-admin closure) Aszx5000 (talk) 09:25, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merc Fenn Wolfmoor

[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)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:WRITER. The article relies exclusively upon primary sources and sources that are connected to Wolfmoor (only sources independent of the subject of the article can be used to establish notability). All information in this article is sourced from Wolfmoor's Tweets, blog and 'About the Author'. The article is based entirely on statements made by Wolfmoor and Wolfmoor's publishers. I was unable to find any good independent sources, making meaningful improvement to this article impossible. Baronet13 (talk) 23:25, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:40, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:40, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Raladic (talk) 04:35, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is plenty of articles supporting GNG.

As the article mentions, the Author has changed their name in 2019 and most of their work from before then is attributed to their older name.

[1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]

I believe the nomination may have missed in WP:BEFORE of the authors prior name under which most work is published, so the nomination may fall under WP:SNOWBALL. Raladic (talk) 05:03, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

None of these are significant coverage in a secondary source. The first one is an interview (which is a primary source and cannot be used to establish notability). The fourth is already cited in the article and is just a list (not coverage). The third and fifth are also just lists and are not coverage. The second only has a sentence about Wolfmoor, and the sixth has only a short paragraph. Nothing here proves notability. Baronet13 (talk) 21:23, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Merc Fenn Wolfmoor is a well-known and significant science fiction and fantasy author who has been a finalist for both the Otherwise Award (formerly known as the James Tiptree, Jr. Award) and the Nebula Award. Under the "any biography" criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (people), a person is considered to meet notability guidelines if they have received a well-known and significant award or honor, or "been nominated for such an award several times." Being a finalist for these awards qualifies Wolfmoor. But in addition there are plenty of other sources proving notability including a large number of reviews of their work, such as a starred review in Publishers Weekly of their short story collection So You Want to Be a Robot, a PW review of Friends for Robot, plus other PW reviews of their short stories in anthologies such as A People’s Future of the United States, Wilde Stories 2016: The Year’s Best Gay Speculative Fiction, and The Best American Science Fiction and Fantasy 2018. Other reviews proving notability can be found in Kirkus Reviews (see links 1 2, and 3) and Booklist (accessible via Wikipedia Library). Add all of that with the NPR reviews/coverage and interviews shared above by Raladic plus having stories reprinted in multiple editions of The Best American Science Fiction and Fantasy and Wolfmoor meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines.--SouthernNights (talk) 13:50, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
'Several' means more than two, so two nominations do not meet the criteria for WP:ANYBIO. All of these reviews are quite short, not in depth, and some of them barely mention Wolfmoor. If these are the best sources in existence, it proves Wolfmoor does not meet notability requirements. Baronet13 (talk) 06:11, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These are standard reviews for Publishers Weekly and Kirkus and absolutely prove notability. In fact, reviews such as these are the gold standard for proving notability for author articles on Wikipedia. Wolfmoor has also been a multi-time nominee for the Locus Award, so there's the 3 award finalists spots you asked for. Plus there is also far more coverage of Wolfmoor and their work out there including in genre industry publications such as this spotlight interview in Lightspeed Magazine and reviews in Locus Magazine (see 1, 2, 3 but there are many more) and Tangent Online (see 1, 2 , 3 but again there are many more). The sum total of all this is Wolfmoor meets notability guidelines. --SouthernNights (talk) 12:00, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews are primary sources and can't be used to establish notability. As for the others, most have only a single paragraph, many only a single sentence, referencing Wolfomoor's work. They are just general descriptions and impressions, not the sort of detailed and in-depth analysis that would qualify as significant coverage. These sources do not satisfy notability requirements. Baronet13 (talk) 06:02, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews are can be used to determine the notability of creative professionals such as authors. Per WP:POET, notability can be established if a creative professional has "won significant critical attention," which these reviews establish. But on top of that Wolfmoor has been a finalist for three different major awards in their genre, meaning they also meet that notability criteria.--SouthernNights (talk) 12:45, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POET isn't relevant because Wolfmoor is not a poet. The issue isn't whether or not reviews can be used to determine notability, it's whether or not the particular sources you listed are 'significant coverage.' Unfortunately, Wikipedia does not clearly define 'significant coverage', describing it only as addressing 'the topic directly and in detail'. I don't think it's possible to cover a book (or anything else) in detail is a single paragraph or less, and as a result would not consider short reviews and brief overviews to be significant coverage. Baronet13 (talk) 02:47, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Baronet13: As an FYI, WP:POET is merely a redirect pointing to the notability guidelines for creative professionals. If you click on it you'll see it applies to all types of creative professionals, including authors. As for your belief that it's not possible to cover a book in a single paragraph, that's merely your belief. I disagree, especially when the reviews are in Publishers Weekly and Kirkus.--SouthernNights (talk) 20:09, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the links provided by SouthernNights I'd say a Weak Keep but would strongly suggest that someone who is familiar with the author actually improve the article as it stands. Because for a random Wikipedia editor scrolling through the page, as it stands, looks very non-notable. Simonm223 (talk) 15:35, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This author should easily pass WP:AUTHOR 3 or 1 based on their contributions to several periodicals and collections over many years, as well as the recognition they have received. For now, I've added one more source from NPR. —siro χ o 23:50, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sourcing identified by SouthernNights. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:06, 17 June 2023 (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.