Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elizabeth Chapman

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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. MBisanz talk 23:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Chapman

Elizabeth Chapman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

The article resembles an advertisement. The only links are to commercial sites and I can't dig up anything that proves there's more to these books than the fact they exist. Unless I overlooked something, this should be deleted Mgm|(talk) 10:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete. She does appear to have written several books in the 1950s to 1980s, but I cannot see that any of her books have any independent reviews, nor am I able to find any biographical material about Chapman. Childrens' authors are often overlooked, and since her work is pre-1990 I suspect that any sources may be paper based, not online. At present, I need to concur with the nomination, but I would be delighted to change my vote if some evidence of notability pops up. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • point of clarification Are you actually arguing that we should favor more recent authors who have online citations over pre-net authors? I understood good WP policy to be a conscious avoidance of that, & if that's your justification, than I must vote keep against that. Ventifax (talk) 18:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • No. If there are paper references, then the article should be kept, but the problem is I cannot find evidence of such either. I cannot cast a keep vote on an unreferenced article based on speculation that paper sources exist. If someone can point to relevant sources, online or paper, I'll change my vote. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep There are no longer many library holdings in the US, as such authors do get overlooked unless they become great classics & it seems probable that hey were of interest only in the UK, whose public libraries are not well represented in WorldCat. . But 3 of the books were translated into Swedish[1], some of the works are in anthologies, [2]. Google news search does not yet cover UK papers adequately, and I have not had the chance to search for reviews, otherwise. DGG (talk) 05:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. This seems like an article in need of work/clean-up, but not deletion. Vartanza (talk) 05:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll refrain from !voting "keep" because the truth is, my mum used to read me Marmaduke books back in the 1970's when I was little, and I loved them. That's not objective enough to form the basis of any !vote, of course. They won't appear in any reviews for the same reason you won't see reviews of "John and Jane Go To The Park": there's not enough substance to review.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 15:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This really could be speedied under lack of context. I mean the article doesn't even say when she was alive, where she was from, and other basic information in a biographical article. Someone can always recreate the page later with propper sources and content.Inmysolitude (talk) 08:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand According to OpenLibrary, Chapman has written 24 books published by different publishing houses between 1957 and 1982, and by DGG's source, some were translated into another language. That's not the hallmarks of a vanity press, it is a clear indicator of notability. Surely some of them were reviewed somewhere. We can't find everything in Google (unfortunately!). It's true the article as it is doesn't have much more than a list of those books, but even that is better than nothing. The existence of stubs encourages people to expand them. --GRuban (talk) 12:51, 17 March 2009 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Elizabeth_Chapman&oldid=1086368801"