Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tilly Greene

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. Consensus seems to be that her notability, while possibly marginal, is sufficiently well-covered to produce a verifiable article. I would strongly encourage that the sources found by ThaddeusB be incorporated into the article, as it's currently bordering on an unsourced BLP. ~ mazca ^talk 15:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tilly Greene

Another recently prodded/deprodded article. As far as I can tell, these ebook/print publishers her work is through are essentially vanity presses. No reliable sources given. DreamGuy (talk) 16:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Not a very notable writer, but appears to be just notable enough for inclusion. Much of her work has been reviewed by Romance specific organizations that at least have some standards (i.e. don't review every book they receive), have editorial control, and certainly are independent of the subject. A small representative sample: [1][2][3][4][5][6]. Also has been interviewed by similar level of quality sources: [7][8][9]. She won an award for best BDSM novel of 2008 from Romance Studio: [10] --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong Info Initially Noted by DreamGuy - Not entirely sure how this process works, but must clarify that publishers Ellora's Cave, Phaze Publishing [imprint of Mundania Press], Samhain Publishing, Tease Publishing, and Whiskey Creek Press Torrid are far from being "vanity presses". No fees were paid in publication by the author, each work went through a structured and noted submission to editorial process, and each are paying royalties based on individual contracts on a monthly or quarterly basis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.221.245.183 (talk • contribs) 2009-06-22 18:48:27
Keep - Enough notable according to references. Vanity press is a discussable concept. Rirunmot (talk) 00:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per the comments posted above, is notable enough to get a number of reviews; the format of distribution of the work shouldn't discredit them.Fuzbaby (talk) 01:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources listed above appear to be enough. Hobit (talk) 02:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I only find marginal notability, but there is coverage out there. Gigs (talk) 02:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per coverage. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:05, 26 June 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.