Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marian Veevers

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 and redirect to Anna Dean. As long as the article Anna Dean for this author's other pseudonym exists, I guess we have to redirect. That article can be nominated for deletion separately.  Sandstein  09:24, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Marian Veevers

Marian Veevers (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)

Promotional article for new book, by borderline notable author ."Jane and Dorothy" has just been published or is about to be published; worldcat show it is in no libraries; Amazon lists in as "currently unavailable". Of her fiction, Worldcat shows Bloodlines in only 34 libraries, Fallen Women in only 4. Her regency romances are in a few hundred libraries each, as is everything in that genre. The timing of this article proves the promotional intent. DGG ( talk ) 19:46, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:13, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:18, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:19, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article was not intended to be promotional. The article Anna Dean has been on Wikipedia since 2011. The original intention was to update that article to include the new publication in the list of books. However, because the new book is published under the author's real name rather than her pen-name, it seemed better to create a new page. User:Peterc1421 ( talk ) 23:15, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have tagged the article for A10 speedy deletion, as we already have an article on this topic, Anna Dean. Most of the content was copied from there. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:32, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• better to have Marian Veevers redirect to Anna Dean. Roseohioresident (talk) 23:59, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• The creator of the new page suggests the opposite at Talk:Marian Veevers: that the content should reside at Marian Veevers as that is the author's real name. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:13, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• The article clearly does not qualify for WP:CSD#A10, as the title is a plausible redirect, so I have removed the tag. My suggestion is to merge and redirect to the existing article. (This can be reversed using a move request later). —Kusma (t·c) 19:53, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Anna Dean, or vice versa as per Kusma's course of action. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:56, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and create a redirect. The two articles have the same content. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:29, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I don't consider he notable under either name DGG ( talk ) 18:02, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think she passes WP:AUTHOR as noted here, here and here but certainly not worthy of two articles. Can't an admin simply delete & redirect, or must we languish at AfD? ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:49, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both articles without creating a redirect, per the arguments of User:DGG, which suggest to me a lack of sufficient notability. I didn't notice any published reviews of her books or any press coverage. This page on Marian Veevers' web site quotes from Kirkus Reviews, but no date or link is provided and I couldn't find the name Veevers in the website search at kirkusreviews.com. EdJohnston (talk) 20:13, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Here is a review of one of the Anna Dean books at the Kirkus site. So, the Kirkus people do like the book, though per kirkusreviews.com they now offer book marketing as a service. I don't know what weight to assign to the 'Exceptional merit' that they find. I am uncertain whether Kirkus Reviews ever publishes any negative reviews, under their new business model. EdJohnston (talk) 20:50, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because of their willingness to review if the author pays them, I consider them unreliable. DGG ( talk ) 22:10, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

EdJohnston, what about the articles and book lists/reviews in the Historical Novel Society and the the Jane Austen News Issue? ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:26, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

^{Adding that an A-10 speedy by one admin was declined by another admin as (not an a10, clearly a plausible redirect).Atsme📞📧 22:43, 27 June 2017 (UTC)}[reply]

User:Atsme: We do not have any Wikipedia article on the Historical Novel Society. These appear to be unsigned reviews by individual readers (probably as requested by the Society office) and the reviews carry no date. I don't notice any criticism in any of the reviews I looked at. So a favorable comment in one of those reviews may not carry much weight. The article in the Jane Austin News looks like an announcement of the forthcoming publication of Jane and Dorothy and not an actual review. It was presumably based on a press release sent to them by the publisher. EdJohnston (talk) 00:58, 28 June 2017 (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.