Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anne Logston

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 01:07, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Logston (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)

The subject of this unsourced BLP does not appear to meet WP:AUTHOR and I was unable to find significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. J04n(talk page) 17:42, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 17:42, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 17:42, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete none of the sources are anywhere near being reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:26, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. ISFDB shows that this writer's work has been regularly covered/reviewed in major genre magazines like Locus and The Dragon, which is the standard way a writer's notability is demonstrated. Also has a brief entry in John Clute's Encyclopedia of Fantasy. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 23:44, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Doesn't Locus attempt to review most things? - David Gerard (talk) 23:50, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, it doesn't. It doesn't even come close to reviewing all the books it lists online as new-and-noteworthy. It does, however, publish an annual list of noteworthy books (last year's is here [1]) and it's pretty easy to see that the books with "Locus Magazine Reviews" is a fairly small fraction of that list, which is in turn not comprehensive. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 01:58, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, heres another book review of Logston's novel Shadow from Starlog magazine - "Readers looking for a strong fantasy novel ought to avoid Shadow. .. Outside of a few intriguing magical potions, there's little to recommend."Shadow by Anne Logston, so with the 2 reviews listed at ISFDB, it meets WP:NBOOK and could have its own article. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:37, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:08, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Worldcat shows her books are only in about 20 libraries each, which is utterly insignificant in the field. since libraries buy on th basis of reviews, this indicates ther lack of any significant reviews also. DGG ( talk ) 08:07, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. I'd have liked to be able to recommend keeping without reservation, but the sources are very sparse: ISFDB indicates that her works have been the subjects of brief reviews, but these do not seem to be available online and so we can't tell whether they contain any biographical content that we could use for the article. Still, they could be sufficient material for briefly characterizing her work, which could make up a poor but passable article.  Sandstein  09:47, 22 October 2016 (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.