Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martha deMey Clow

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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:08, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Martha deMey Clow

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

The article is clearly a good faith attempt to improve the encyclopedia, but the subject fails WP:N for both WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. She appears to have only authored one (non-notable) work. Sources provide only trivial coverage. AlexEng^(TALK) 08:03, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is part of a series I'm working on (the somewhat-more-notable Marcia J. Bennett was the first) to document lesser-known women writers of sci-fi and fantasy from the 1970s and '80s. My guideline was Wikipedia:Notability_people: "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." My additional hope in creating articles like this one is to increase WP's coverage of a genre that has been historically antagonistic toward the participation of women. I understand that this doesn't change the notability of these writers in an absolute sense, but I think that holding a strict line on notability in such cases can have the effect of extending the biases that hampered the development of these artists in the first place. Including such articles will also be of help to anyone interested in researching this period. I throw myself on the mercy of the court! :) Thank you for the opportunity to discuss. --Stevenarntson (talk) 18:16, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply! I have no doubt that your intentions are good, and as both a fan of Scifi literature and a proponent of women authors, I sympathize with the need to shine a light on this topic. Unfortunately, in this particular case, I don't think the subject is notable enough for inclusion. AlexEng^(TALK) 23:11, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. AlexEng^(TALK) 08:11, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. AlexEng^(TALK) 08:11, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:02, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Wikipedia is the place to recognize notability, not try to create it. A single novel that received a lukewarm review doesn't satisfy WP:AUTHOR. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:59, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:AUTHOR holds the bar ridiculously high. 100s of writers covered by WP articles wouldn't pass it. As for WP:GNG, this author had a novel published by Ballantine Books, a major publisher, and it was independently reviewed in an important journal. Sounds notable enough to me. lNeverCry 23:06, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting we keep the author article or a hypothetical article about the book she published? Authors do not inherit notability from their publishers. "Luna Monthly" is not an "important journal," and even if it were, it would need to cover the author herself, not her work. deMey Clow is listed (read: trivially covered) in a self-described "author index." None of this qualifies as significant coverage under GNG. AlexEng^(TALK) 23:37, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just in the interest of clarity, I tried to find two reputable sources to describe Clow, which are Science Fiction and Fantasy Literature Vol II (print) and The Science Fiction Encyclopedia. For a review of the work, I used Luna Monthly, which was reasonably legit in its day, though not hugely important. The "Index" you mention isn't one of my sources--just an external link I thought people might find useful. Thanks! --Stevenarntson (talk) 04:23, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Science Fiction and Fantasy Literature Vol II" is what I referred to as the author's index. It's a 1,142 page list of hundreds of authors with a short blurb about each of them. That qualifies as trivial coverage. To the best of my knowledge, nobody has written in a significant degree about this author, other than to acknowledge her existence and her profession. I don't think that qualifies as notable. AlexEng^(TALK) 18:23, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I misunderstood you there. Thanks for clarifying. --Stevenarntson (talk) 19:23, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 13:30, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, on the basis that finding several examples of news/book coverage of an author whose only book was published in 1970, is quite a feat, suggesting there may well be more, contemporaneous, offline coverage. The big disappointment is that her passing in 2010 seems to have gone unnoticed. Sionk (talk) 22:58, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:BASIC to start. Article could use improvement, not deletion per WP:ATD. Read Women in speculative fiction for context. Thank you Stevenarntson for your work on these articles.Hmlarson (talk) 20:05, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious, since you linked WP:BASIC: what are the multiple sources in which the subject has had significant coverage? AlexEng^(TALK) 20:53, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:10, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sources indicate coverage in independent reliable sources. Author published by respected, major genre publisher. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:42, 27 December 2016 (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.