Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delia Falconer

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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:32, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delia Falconer

[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)

Almost completely self referential. BEFORE reveals mostly self published and her own website referencing her. Searching her books doesn't reveal much either in the way of sourcing for a BLP. FrederalBacon (talk) 22:20, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, and Women. FrederalBacon (talk) 22:20, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 13:03, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems notable enough to me: hundreds of hits in ProQuest, also for example in the Sydney Morning Herald; she's had book reviews in the Los Angeles Times and New York Times Piecesofuk (talk) 15:31, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I agree, her books are well received. Also, the SMH link doesn't work, if you can get that working and there's enough there, I'll build it out an withdraw this myself. But there is a significant lack of coverage about her that is third party. Her books may warrant inclusion, but coverage about her life to build a BLP off of doesn't really exist. And everything currently on the page is self referenced (IE, The reference for the information that she wrote a book is a link to her publisher with the news release). FrederalBacon (talk) 17:22, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the SMH link, I typed site:www.smh.com.au Delia Falconer into the google search box. If you have access to ProQuest then there are quite a few earlier (c. 1997) hits from the SMH and other Australian newspapers, you can access via the Wikipedia Library, I think this link should work https://wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/login?auth=production&url=https://search.proquest.com/ip Piecesofuk (talk) 17:58, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Going through the Wiki library, I see a lot of book reviews, articles by her, and little blurbs about her doing lectures, like press releases. If you see anything in there that would fit in a BLP, feel free, but I'm still not seeing SIGCOV in there; I will keep looking, but I did a pretty thorough BEFORE for her, since she is an author with well received books, I figured there would be coverage. FrederalBacon (talk) 18:07, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The only other things I can find are short bios (or praise) in anthologies like https://archive.org/details/daughtersfathers0000unse_z4g5/page/150/mode/1up, https://archive.org/details/bestaustralianst0000unse/page/289/mode/1up and https://archive.org/details/isbn_9781863953535/page/n18/mode/1up?q=%22Delia+Falconer%22 Piecesofuk (talk) 18:11, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another one from The Literature of Australia - an Anthology https://archive.org/details/literatureofaust0000unse/page/1384/mode/1up Piecesofuk (talk) 18:26, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:AUTHOR#3, and the multiple reviews of her works, e.g. Signs and Wonders (Sydney Review of Books, also discussing her other works, including Sydney and The Service of Clouds), The Service of Clouds (Kirkus Reviews), The Service of Clouds (Publishers Weekly, via Gale), The Service of Clouds (Library Journal, via Gale), The Service of Clouds (Artforum International, via Gale), McNamer, D.. The Service of Clouds, In: NEW YORK TIMES BOOK REVIEW. 103(19):34-34 (record only), By: Linfield, Susie. The Service of Clouds, In: Los Angeles Times. April 29, 1998, p5.; Los Angeles Times, 1998. (record only), "The bumpkin calculus of Time" Reviewed Work: Sydney by Delia Falconer (Antipodes, via JSTOR), Benteen and the ghosts of his last stand (The Age, via Gale (review of The Lost Thoughts of Soldiers), Looking at the spaces between the story (The Sun-Herald, via Gale, review of The Lost Thoughts of Soldiers), Love and Vertigo: The Blue Mountains as Veranda in Australian Women's Writing (Antipodes, via JSTOR, includes discussion of her poetry), New Writing (The Age, discusses her winning an award, via Gale). She also has a profile in Gale Literature: Contemporary Authors and a brief profile in The Writers Directory (via Gale). This is only a review of an initial online search and the first page of results at the WP Library. I have not yet reviewed ProQuest, but there appear to be plenty of sources available to help develop this article about her and her career. Beccaynr (talk) 18:14, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Via Proquest, there is interview-based coverage with secondary context and commentary that helps support her WP:BASIC notability, in addition to her WP:AUTHOR notability that permits a BLP to be developed about her and her career, e.g. JANE, F. (1997, Oct 25). SKY WRITER; PRO FILE * DELIA FALCONER / AUTHOR: [LATE EDITION]. Sydney Morning Herald, Retrieved from, Greenwood, H. (2010, Oct 02). Delia Falconer: Interview. Sydney Morning Herald, Retrieved from. LAT and NYT reviews are available, and there are additional reviews for Signs and Wonders, e.g. Distilling the signs of the times. (2021, Oct 16). Weekend Australian, Retrieved from, and Addressing the mess and beauty we've made. (2021, Oct 16). Sydney Morning Herald, Retrieved from. Beccaynr (talk) 18:43, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:NAUTHOR based on the excellent research by Beccaynr and Piecesofuk and the multiple reviews of her work found in reliable sources such as the LA Times, NY Times and others. The article sourcing needs to be improved, but that is not a reason for deletion since it is clear that sources exist. Netherzone (talk) 19:30, 25 August 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.