Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emily Hauser

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 by consensus that the wiki-notability standard for authors is met. XOR'easter (talk) 16:03, 10 December 2022 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Emily Hauser

[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 evidence of notability. None of the cited sources are independent of the subject, and I can find no independent sources which count towards WP:GNG; nor do I think she meets WP:NAUTHOR or WP:NACADEMIC. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:40, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, and Women. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:40, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:16, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:AUTHOR#3 - I have added multiple reviews for multiple works. Beccaynr (talk) 22:44, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Beccaynr I don't quite see a keep there - Reading Poetry is an edited collection, so only For the Most Beautiful is useful for WP:NAUTHOR. -- asilvering (talk) 05:24, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There appear to be reviews of her two other novels, as well. To me, at least, "multiple reviews for multiple works" doesn't mean that every work has to have multiple reviews – four reviews of one book and one each of two more is still multiple both in the number of reviews and in the number of books reviewed. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:21, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi asilvering, there appears to be no exception in WP:CREATIVE that removes the editor of an edited collection from "a major role in co-creating", because the work is more than 'copyediting.' There is a reason editors are included in citations and on the covers of edited works, and in this instance, while it could be cited more clearly in the article, she also wrote a chapter of the book. Beccaynr (talk) 12:47, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To me the rationale for giving these less weight is not about how creative the contribution is, but the depth of coverage in sources. A review of an edited volume is more likely to devote most of its attention to the individual pieces in the collection than in the work of fitting them together. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:08, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For this volume, that she also contributed to, there is coverage of how the pieces were fit together, e.g. Reading Poetry, Writing Genre: English Poetry and Literary Criticism in Dialogue with Classical Scholarship, edited by Silvio Bär and Emily Hauser (Translation and Literature, 2019), commentary on the collection as a whole, e.g. Reading Poetry, Writing Genre. English Poetry and Literary Criticism in Dialogue with Classical Scholarship ed. by Silvio Bär and Emily Hauser (review) (Classical Journal, 2022), and the key concepts identified by the editors, e.g. Reading Poetry, Writing Genre: English Poetry and Literary Criticism in Dialogue with Classical Scholarship. Bloomsbury studies in classical reception (Bryn Mawr Classical Review 2019), which seems to help support the notability of her major role in co-creating this work as an editor. Beccaynr (talk) 19:40, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think we have enough reviews for WP:AUTHOR even omitting the edited volume. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:22, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable as novelist, enough RS reviews. PamD 09:04, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - primarily notable under WP:AUTHOR as a novelist (see now the multiple reviews of her fiction added to the article), and as a public Classicist. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 09:36, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the reviews have added weight for her inclusion Lajmmoore (talk) 17:18, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the subject is notable and that is established on the pageSrsval (talk) 16:03, 5 December 2022 (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.