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. There were valid concerns made that the subject has not been the subject of sufficient specific, in-depth coverage in reliable sources that leads to unambiguous passing of the standards set by WP:N. However, there's also reasonable counter-arguments regarding the amount of work she's had published in notable publications, the amount of overall coverage that she has received, and the critical attention she's received that's mentioned as a criterion in WP:NAUTHOR. Good-faith disagreement over the amount of notability conferred by some of the interviews included is certainly valid, but the significant expansion and improvement in sourcing by Montanabw and others does appear to remove much of the concerns about this being technically an unsourced BLP. Consensus of most editors here - though arguments to keep are variable - seem to be that she passes one or more of the required thresholds for being notable enough for an article, and the sourcing has improved vastly. ~ mazca ^talk 13:39, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mari Ness (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)

WP:BLP of a writer, with no strong or reliably sourced claim to passing WP:AUTHOR. The only notability claim in evidence here is that her work exists, and seven of the eight footnotes here are not valid support for notability at all: three are her "our contributors" bios on the self-published websites of book or magazine publishing companies she's directly affiliated with, three are Q&A interviews in which she's speaking about herself in the first person on non-notable blogs, and one is a piece of her own writing.
As always, a writer is not automatically entitled to have a Wikipedia article just because it's technically possible to metareference her work to itself as evidence that it exists -- the notability test for a writer is being the subject of enough third party coverage and analysis, in sources independent of herself and her publishers, to demonstrate the significance of her work. But the only independent media source in evidence here is not even about her or her writing, but just briefly namechecks her existence as a bystanding giver of soundbite in an article about somebody else filing a disability-related complaint against an airline -- which means it's not doing anything more to demonstrate her notability as a writer than any of the other sources, because it isn't "covering" her in a substantively noteworthy context. Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to be much, much better referenced than this. Bearcat (talk) 18:48, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:48, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:48, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:27, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:27, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable writer. We do not have adequate sourcing to justify the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:42, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is a brand-new article and a little bit of WP:HEY should tune it up in no time. A publisher's affiliated blog is different from an amateur or promotional blog. I'll pop over there and see if we can tune up the source material. Montanabw^(talk) 21:05, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Publisher's affiliated blogs" are not notability-bolstering sources if either (a) she has a direct affiliation with said publisher, or (b) the content is a Q&A interview in which she's talking about herself in the first person rather than being written about by other people in the third person. Bearcat (talk) 22:08, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The article which refers to the airline incident is there to give her estimated birthday and identify what it is specifically that causes her to use a wheelchair. Not as a reference to her work.   ☕ Antiqueight ^chatter 21:14, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That article does not unambiguously identify its subject as this Mari Ness, so it's actually unusable - see WP:EGRS. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:25, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • ReplyThe issue was discussed in a number of places including Worldcon and confirmed by Mari Ness on her twitter and blogs. ☕ Antiqueight ^chatter 10:18, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: And I'm seeing recognized non-self-published credits here, so which works are allegedly self-published?  *Montanabw^(talk) 21:17, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody said it was a question of whether any of her works were self-published or not, as it is rare, but possible, for self-published works to make a writer notable (see e.g. Terry Fallis, a writer who won a major Canadian literary award for his self-published debut novel) — but what cannot be self-published, when it comes to establishing whether a writer would be notable enough for a Wikipedia article, is the sources being used in the article as support for her notability claims. To get over GNG, she has to have real media coverage in sources that are fully independent of any form of direct affiliation with her or her own publishers: newspapers and magazines she's not directly affiliated with, books by other writers, literary journals. Regardless of whether the works themselves were self-published or not, the sources you use to demonstrate the works' significance have to represent independent third party attention being paid to her work in real media. Bearcat (talk) 21:56, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• • Follow up: She appeared at WorldCon, that is probably enough all by itself to confer notability, but there's other material also. Montanabw^(talk) 21:45, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not if your source for her appearance at WorldCon is WorldCon's own self-published list of its own participants, it's not — it doesn't become a valid notability claim until real media write journalistic content about her participation at WorldCon. Bearcat (talk) 22:17, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is genre fiction and this individual is notable in her field. Just appearing at all at WorldCon is clearly a major indicia of notability. By "real media?" The Sci Fi press covered this individual, her interviews in mainstream Sci Fi publications is also a clear indicia of notability, so all of this does in fact count. Please stop moving the goalposts. Montanabw^(talk) 21:47, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Magazines have been buying her stories for 15 years. Tor.com has her as a regular contributor. Good enough for me Twopower332.1938 (talk) 01:24, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A person doesn't get over our notability criteria for writers by being the creator of media content about other things, she gets over our notability criteria for writers by being the subject of media content written and created by other people. Bearcat (talk) 01:43, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Heaven forbid a woman be good at both writing and reviewing. Twopower332.1938 (talk) 03:56, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neither her gender nor her status as a "writer and reviewer" have anything to do with the issue. The notability test for people, regardless of their occupation and gender, always requires independent external recognition of the significance of their work in reliable sources that do not have a vested interest in promoting it — which is precisely why a person's sources have to represent her being spoken about by other people in the third person in real media, and cannot represent her or her publishers doing the speaking themselves in Q&A interviews or WP:SPIP. Bearcat (talk) 06:25, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Times has a "vested interest" in getting people to click on their articles. Please cite to a specific guideline that says that interviews by a major publication within the field is insufficient. Montanabw^(talk) 21:49, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's repeatedly stated all the way throughout our notability and sourcing policies that articles have to be supported by secondary sources — that is, sources written in the third person which present independent unaffiliated analysis — and not primary sources, or sources in which they're talking about themselves. Just to be clear, nobody has said that interviews are completely disallowable as sources — you're absolutely allowed to sparingly use interviews as supplementary sources for stray facts in an article about a person who's already gotten over GNG on third-party third-person journalism — but what you can't do is claim that a person is notable enough for a Wikipedia article if the Q&A interviews are the best sources she's got and third-party third-person journalism is non-existent. Bearcat (talk) 12:31, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I agree with Twopower332.1938 and Montanabw that her commercial success as a writer and being an invited guest at Worldcon confer notability for her as a writer in her genre. Smirkybec (talk) 11:09, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 02:14, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep as there is some significant coverage. I found these two 1 2 reviews of collections which contain her work. Nothing on her in Gale Literature, but as she is largely self-published, it isn't surprising. --DiamondRemley39 (talk) 11:59, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm puzzled by the high reference given to her as self published. She is published as a short story writer by Apex Magazine, Clarkesworld, Fireside Magazine, Lightspeed, Nightmare, Strange Horizons" as well as Uncanny. These are some the biggest names in the science fiction and fantasy genre for magazines. They vary in size and age but they are seriously well regarded in the industry. These are the media of this industry to a large extent. They are only her publishers in so far as they are publishers of fiction, reviews and commentary and they have published her work in their magazines. Tor.com has used her reviews and articles which get referenced in other magazines and journals. These are not self publishing sources. These are independent and respected magazines who publish her and talk about her. Her collection Through Immortal Shadows Singing (poems) is published by Papaveria Press which is not self publishing. ☕ Antiqueight ^chatter 12:33, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, nobody said that her work was self-published. The problem is that the sources being used to support the article are self-published ones: people are not automatically notable enough for Wikipedia articles just because they have websites, or "contributor" profiles on the websites of their own employers, or Q&A interviews in which they're talking about themselves in the first person. And where her work has been published is not relevant to our notability criteria, either: people do not get over our notability criteria by being the bylined author of content about other things, they get over our notability criteria by being the subject of content created by other people. Bearcat (talk) 12:31, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Twopower332.1938 and Montanabw. --Rosiestep (talk) 04:55, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - As explained above, being the creator of content does not make you notable; having secondary coverage ABOUT YOU makes you notable. Appearing at a self-promotional event does not make you notable. Nor does being a writer of articles (she needs articles ABOUT her, not BY her). Interviews don't confer notability, nor do listicles, nor do passing mentions of articles or commentary she has written, nor do short bios prepared likely by her and displayed on her publishers' pages. I'm confused as to what people think are the secondary sources supporting her; I see none. Can anyone point to a single secondary source that is reliable, independent, and has significant coverage of the subject? Ikjbagl (talk) 02:38, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Challenge: Can anyone point to secondary sources that are reliable, independent, and have significant coverage of the subject? Ikjbagl (talk) 08:22, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal: 1) The relisting comment is specious and inaccurate—The article has multiple sources. WP:V is clearly met and there are no BLP violations. 2) The comments above about interviews being “self-published sources affiliated with the author” are also incorrect, as the author has no ownership or control of these sources—if an author published by Random House is interviewed on the Random House blog, it would be perfectly acceptable. Within this area of genre fiction, just being published and interviewed by the sources cited in the article is clear indicia of work that is notable within the genre. 3) The sources that do not go to notability are used simply to verify biographical details. So, in a nutshell, the debate here is only if this author is notable, based upon where she has been published, the places she has been asked to speak and so on. The question of whether “interview-style” articles are adequate for third-party neutral coverage is the primary debate here, and given that most coverage does require interviews of the subject, I have to say that such coverage does “count.” Montanabw^(talk) 15:51, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Montanabw: I will direct you to this page WP:INTERVIEW. I don't think self-aggrandizing interviews by her own publishing company count as independent coverage that is secondary. I looked through all of the references on her page and didn't find any that were useful. You just keep repeating the same thing over and over; can you actually list references that are not self-aggrandizing interviews that are independent and provide significant coverage in a secondary source? That is what you need for notability, because where she has written and where she has been asked to speak are meaningless- they are NOT independent or secondary. Ikjbagl (talk) 18:13, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• WP: Interview carries no weight since it is an essay and essays are just the opinions of one or more editors but are not community supported either as policy or guidelines. Littleolive oil (talk) 18:25, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikjbagl:These are independent publishers, not self-publishing companies. If a person is published by an independent publisher, that is very different. NAUTHOR is a set of guidelines that assists in assessing notability, but these are just that, guidelines. An author can be notable by their publications alone if those publications result, as here, in notice by significant organizations, on this case, WorldCon. By your standard, I wonder if even Emily Dickenson would pass notability because she was a recluse, her works were first published by friends, and it took another 50 years for literary critics to understand her. Montanabw^(talk) 20:20, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Montanabw: This is my clearest indicator that you do not understand notability. If Emily Dickinson's works hadn't been widely discussed by critics and in the secondary sources, she wouldn't be notable either. You could write literally the best piece of literature that has ever existed, but if nobody recognizes you for it, YOU ARE NOT NOTABLE. Ikjbagl (talk) 21:04, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Montanabw: Further I see no evidence she was "recognized" by WorldCon. I see on her page one reference that says she attended a conference. Do you have a reference that shows her as being recognized? Or speaking? Or anything more significant than a list of hundreds of attendees that happens to include her? Ikjbagl (talk) 21:22, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notable enough per Montana directly above, and Antiqueight. Add:Notability is a guideline not a definitive position on what we can write articles on. This BLP is about a woman who has created a body of work that is significant in size, is not self-published, and has enough attention to an invitation to a world event. We really have to be able to distinguish within notability, levels of notability. Notability is not one bar fits all but a flexible guide towards inclusion. Ness is notable enough and more notable than lots. Littleolive oil (talk) 18:09, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being asked to speak is an independent marker, by the way. Littleolive oil (talk) 18:33, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Littleolive oil: Someone else asking you to speak is an act that happens independent of you, but I think you still need independent, secondary sources that cover your speech for it to count towards notability. Where is it she spoke? Is there significant coverage of her speech in a secondary source? Ikjbagl (talk) 19:00, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikjbagl: When I say, asked to speak I'm talking about interviews. Sorry I wasn't very clear on that. The fact that an author is interviewed is an indication of the significance of the author's work. There's nothing in the guideline that indicates that interview must then again be reviewed. I don't see that happening in most cases with interviews. The interview itself is a stand alone indication of value dependent of course on who is doing the interview. The danger is that with notability we try to apply the absolute highest level of whatever the guideline means, and I think there are big holes in the guideline, to everything that comes our way. That's not how Wikipedia works seems to me. We have more or less quality sources and we have more or less notable topics within the boundaries of Notability. Perhaps that's why this is a guideline and not a policy. The boundaries are flexible enough to accommodate different kinds of articles. Add: Value in literature/ writing /poetry is often tied to commercialism rather than intrinsic value of the work itself. We have to be able to judge where value begins and ends; I think the boundaries are blurred. Littleolive oil (talk) 19:32, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikjbagl:, WorldCon all on its own is indicia that a writer in the field of SF/F has “arrived.” You are not invited to be a panelist or speaker there without a significant body of recognized work. Montanabw^(talk) 20:20, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Interviews are not the only source. Interviews published independent of the the person interviewed in a reliable source is no different than any content published in a RS. Oversight is present in such sources. An author writes with an opinion as does a person interviewed. We judge verifiability and reliability based on oversight not on the content. We can and do use content in Wikipedia that is clearly non-neutral, for example, when we can rely on the oversight of the source. Littleolive oil (talk) 18:25, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

this edit : One guy saw her panel at Worldcon, didn't like it. Some independent person at Locus liked her short story, reviewed it. That's 30 minutes of Googling. Are the goalposts going to be moved again? Twopower332.1938 (talk) 23:03, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: not terribly clear-cut, but nevertheless a keep. We lack a single big article that discusses her work and career, but rather we find a series of smaller reviews of the person and her writing. That is always a difficult call per WP:BASIC. However, we also have WP:NAUTHOR, which offers supplementary criteria that help balance the fact that authors often receive less coverage in proportion to that given to their work than do pop stars, for example, who generally receive more personal attention than their songs themselves do. NAUTHOR offers criterion 4: "The person's work ... has: ... won significant critical attention ..." and that doesn't seem to be in doubt judged by the sheer volume of independent reviews cited as sources in her article. Ness has also received attention as evidenced by being invited to speak at WorldCon. I reject the assertion that a convention of that importance in the field is merely a vehicle for self-promotion: it is clearly a major event attracting large audiences, and an invitation to speak indicates the prestige of the speaker. Taken together, that's more than enough to convince me that the article meets our notability requirements. --RexxS (talk) 11:05, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Albeit there doesn't seem to be a very high notability for her (to have an independent article easily), but I think she might be located at least at a minimum level of notability, to keep an/the independent article. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 20:03, 30 April 2020 (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.