Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isobel Harrop

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--Ymblanter (talk) 08:44, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Isobel Harrop

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

(Declined PROD - reason provided in edit summary)
Subject does not appear to meet WP:AUTHOR or general notability guidelines.
Goodreads is an open-membership site and shouldn't even be mentioned, much less used as an indicator of notability. Similarly, praise from a "Facebook Poet" referred to in a blog doesn't fulfill AUTHOR. The couple of media mentions are from local papers don't constitute GNG and the other links are primarily promotional in nature. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 00:45, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 00:47, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 00:47, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was the editor who prodded this article stating "Author of a single book published November 2013 and not yet widely reviewed; does not appear to yet meet WP:AUTHOR". At that time a web search found only local newspaper mentions and user-edited sites such as Goodreads. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:02, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment i deprodded, to give it a chance, but the current article is all i could bring it to. I feel too biased about the subject to make a "vote", but if a new fan of the author, a pretty experienced editor, can only bring it to this point, it speaks for itself.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:19, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Booktrust is a reliable and national source, but the 4-sentence long article calls her "up and coming" which is the very definition of non-notable. It's a rare thing when a source asserts non-notability. "Up-and-coming" is someone who is on the verge of notability, on the way to notability, will likely be notable, etc.. I'd like to see her on Wikipedia after she arrives eg. book reviews in The Guardian, BBC, etc.. or after a long career as a writer with depth of sourcing. -- GreenC 05:28, 18 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.