Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Szilvia Molnar (3rd nomination)

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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ Magnolia677 (talk) 13:33, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Szilvia Molnar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:AUTHOR. The sources cited in the article are reviews of her novel, The Nursery, with one source being sponsored content, however, I was unable to locate any biographical information about this person in reliable secondary sources. Magnolia677 (talk) 13:34, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Magnolia677 (talk) 13:34, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Hungary, and Sweden. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:03, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This article is a great example of how a subject's notability can change over the years. The article was previously deleted in 2010 after an AfD, with that deleted article being a prime example of Wikipedia:Too soon. However, today Szilvia Molnar is absolutely notable. This author has not just had reviews in many of the biggest publications in the world such as the New York Times and The Atlantic, but these are also extremely in-depth featured reviews. The article lists several of the biggest reviews but there are also reviews in Publishers Weekly, Kirkus, and dozens of other reliable media outlets. Add into this all the other media coverage I'm seeing and Molnar meets our notability guidelines per WP:Author. As a side note, I've added new information and citations to the article.--SouthernNights (talk) 20:12, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that her book is notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Below is an outline of each source cited in the article:

• [1] - review of her book.
• [2] - self-sourced.
• [3] - interview in "Luna Magazine".
• [4] - review of her book.
• [5] - review of her book.
• [6] - two-sentence long description in "Guernica" magazine of Molnar's works, with one of the sentences describing where she lives.
• [7] - review of her book in "Bomb" magazine.
• [8] - interview in "the 19th" magazine. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:22, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Additional reviews:

• [9] (Ebsco/Wikipedia Library link]
• [10]
• [11] - review of her book "Soft Split"
• [12] - German review (paywalled)
• [13]

Brief mentions about her work in publishing:

• [14]
• [15]
• [16]

Other:

• [17] - fluffy but reliable and independent profile in the Hungarian version of Glamour magazine.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 04:36, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:Author, a creative person is notable for multiple criteria including if "The person's work (or works) has ... (c) won significant critical attention." Notice that criteria says "work (or works)" meaning a single work can prove notability. While it's unusual for an author to become notable for a single book, it does happen and Szilvia Molnar's first novel is one of those examples, winning massive acclaim and notice for Molnar. SouthernNights (talk) 11:41, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Since citations are being listed in this AfD, I wanted to add a few that were missed. See my first post above for the Publishers Weekly and Kirkus reviews.

• The Bookseller coverage of author and book (this is already in article)
• Interview and article in Hungarian magazine Roadster (I've now added this to article)
• Interview and article in the Hungarian magazine Könyves Magazin (I've now added this to article)
• Compact Magazine review of book
• Library Journal review of book
• Mention of Molner and her book in The Guardian as part of a new trend in dark books for women
• Interview in The Millions
• Interview in Berliner Morgenpost from Germany --SouthernNights (talk) 14:33, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - notable per all the newly found refs.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 04:37, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The novel is clearly notable. I had previously held that authors must have two reviewed books to count under WP:AUTHOR (apart from cases like Harper Lee), but SouthernNights is making me doubt my interpretation. In any case the earlier chapbook has received some attention as well. Aside from reviews, the coverage brought here of the author appears to satisfy GNG. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:09, 12 October 2023 (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.