Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blake Northcott

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:31, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blake Northcott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Some of the subject's accomplishments is her novel written but only remarkable in Amazon. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Mediran (t • c) 06:01, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:40, 21 December 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, Courcelles 05:46, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I've taken out a lot of info from the article that was being sourced through Amazon, IMDb, and her own website. I did manage to find a mention in Mashable, but so far I'm having a lot of trouble showing that she and her work have been mentioned in RS. All I'm finding are predominantly blog posts, semi-primary sources (such as a profile for an appearance at a comic book con), and random "junk" hits. I think I'll probably have to vote delete.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:32, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I did a search and while she does seem to be more talked about than some of the other indie authors out there, she hasn't been the focus of enough independent and reliable sources to show notability. There is the potential for her becoming notable if any of the plans for her books to become TV shows or movies ever pans out, but we can't keep the article based on crystal balling that these books might receive more coverage or get an adaptation in the future. A lot can change, after all. I have no problem with it getting userfied, but I do want to warn the original editor that the previous incarnation of the article had issues with neutrality and reliable sourcing.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:43, 26 December 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.