Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruth Joffre

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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. Multiple people proposed a redirect, and that remains an option which could be carried out by anyone. I am closing this as Keep, meaning Keep or Redirect, because there was no sentiment at all for Delete. MelanieN (talk) 03:50, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ruth Joffre

Ruth Joffre (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)

BLP doesn't seem to meet

WP:NBIO - independent coverage is largely focussed on the book (Night Beast) rather than the individual. MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:21, 9 July 2022 (UTC) Nomination withdrawn, thanks to the improvements made by CT55555 and Beccaynr. MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:23, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

  1. https://coloradoreview.colostate.edu/reviews/night-beast/
  2. https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/ruth-joffre/night-beast/
  3. https://blog.pshares.org/night-beast-and-other-stories-by-ruth-joffre/
  4. https://mastersreview.com/book-review-night-beast-ruth-joffre/
Links to other reviews are here: https://bookmarks.reviews/reviews/all/night-beast-and-other-stories/
I have edited the article to mention her other books writing, and to include biographical information so that it is no longer just focussed on one book. CT55555 (talk) 11:24, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
CT55555, Joffre does not appear to have written other books beyond her debut collection of short stories; her website indicates she has had other writings included in anthologies - does this seem like an accurate way to describe what you are referring to as "other books"? Beccaynr (talk) 23:47, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My bad, yes, I should have said "publications" I think they are not books. I've corrected it now. Also, I've avoided commenting on our different interpretations of meeting
WP:AUTHOR as we see it differently, and I think that's OK, I think the discussion you linked to showed me there are different valid ways to interpret the criteria. Peace. CT55555 (talk) 05:50, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
I think the discussion linked below that you started indicates that multiple reviews for one book with no indications that the work is significant or well-known, and no other basis to support notability means that a redirect to the book is supported by the guidelines. You had asked for feedback from other editors on this topic, and I created an article about the book, removed the redundant material from this article, and it now seems apparent that it is
WP:TOOSOON for this article to be supported at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 06:01, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I had closed this as Keep but was asked to relist this AFD discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:45, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 20:51, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect per Beccaynr. Will allow for easy recreation if the author becomes more notable later... Eddie891 Talk Work 14:16, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Beccaynr/Eddie891 & close ASAP. There's no reason to keep this open. Let's move along. Buffs (talk) 15:24, 4 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.