Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Debora Geary

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. Per the below discussion, it is apparent that the article's subject has not been significantly covered by reliable sources. Therefore, while the author may be notable in the future, at this time there is no policy-backed reasoning for this articles inclusion. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 16:58, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Debora Geary

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

The subject appears to be the author of several self published books (Fireweed Publishing) but shows no results in a Google News search. I did find one book review in News Library:

Baltimore Examiner (MD) - May 9, 2012, Book review of 'A Modern Witch' by Debora Geary, Title: A Modern Witch (A Modern Witch Series: Book One) Author: Debora Geary Publisher: Fireweed Publishing Publication Date: March 12, 2011 Genre: Fantasy Review: — Keithbob • Talk • 22:34, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appears not to be in the same ballpark as WP:AUTHOR Neonchameleon (talk) 23:21, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Geary is that rare thing, a highly successful self-published author working outside the normal publishing system. She is very popular, her library holdings at LibraryThing [1] put her in the top 1% of 1% of all authors in all languages (ranked #10,201). The Telegraph said "A Modern Witch which recently ranked number one on the Kindle best seller list,"[2] while GalleyCat reported "Debora Geary rocketed to the top of our Self-Published Bestseller List with her Modern Witch series". Self-published authors have a much more difficult time because they don't have access to the publishing house marketing machine that create the normal book reviews through established channels, but in this case I think we should give extra weight to the popularity of the author. -- GreenC 20:28, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Neonchameleon. Not notable. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 17:01, 25 December 2013 (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 08:11, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Even though I think WP:AUTHOR is too stringent (it sets a much higher bar than is generally applied to authors' articles in Wikipedia, and is out of sync with guidelines on biographies of singers and athletes), the subject of this article seems to fail the basic GNG: I can't see a listed source that provides reliable, third-party, in-depth coverage. Because this is a BLP, we have to err on the side of deletion to protect Wikipedia and the subject of the article. --Slashme (talk) 13:28, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, probably more successful than your average self-published author, but there are no reliable sources (as in, not Facebook, blogs, forum posts, etc) that talk about Geary and why she and her work are notable. There are a couple of brief mentions in reliable sources, but these don't confirm anything except that she's an author who self-releases books for the Kindle. I don't think she meets the WP:BIO notability criteria. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:42, 8 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Keep, The thing that caught me about this article is that she's made a #1 Kindle best seller list - see kbooks. There's the magazine article on the first comment and: telegraph article and publishers weekly. Books here --CaroleHenson (talk) 02:46, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply, the mention in the Telegraph is a single sentence that offers her as an example of a successful self published author, and she's not mentioned in the linked PW article at all. WP:GNG requires 'significant' coverage, and I don't think this qualifies. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:41, 9 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]
- Reply - Understood. She seems to be on a good roll, so hopefully in a year or two there will be more reliable sources to prove notability.--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:17, 10 January 2014 (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.