Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Willow Dawson
- 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. (non-admin closure) Kaizenify (talk) 20:44, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Willow Dawson (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)
no significant coverage, mostly plagiarized from one source, not notable under WP:ARTIST LarstonMarston (talk) 16:13, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- Withdrawn by nominator. now that the article has been filled out with more sources it's clear that her works have received significant coverage. LarstonMarston (talk) 04:37, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Women, Comics and animation, and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 18:20, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep Clearly meets WP:AUTHOR with reviews of international scope for her books including in Quill and Quire. Simonm223 (talk) 18:24, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: Regarding copyvio concerns, the offending content seems to stem from this edit – noting this here as I'll remove the content shortly. RunningTiger123 (talk) 04:32, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Literature. Bridget (talk) 16:09, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. I've just expanded the article (alongside Ashlar) with some reviews of her work. Some of book reviews merely mention her illustrator credit and don't really touch on her illustrative work. But I believe this passes WP:NAUTHOR (or a more general notability guideline) based on the cited critical attention on Hyena in Petticoats (in CM Magazine and Quill & Quire), The Wolf-Birds (in School Library Journal, Publisher Weekly and Kirkus Reviews), and her work on the White as Milk, Red as Blood translation, which was the work's "very first fully illustrated, full-colour edition" according to this article. This 2005 article in the The Tyee also discusses more of her earlier graphic novel work. Best, Bridget (talk) 17:24, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- Please remove my name from your comment. I did not "expand" the article, I deleted material that was inappropriate, which you re-added. Also, you didn't do anything "alongside" me - you undermined my efforts and your reference to "reviewing my work" is paternalistic and offensive. (Also, there is no need to mention me as the changes are logged in the history.) ash (talk) 03:24, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Ashlar: Not sure where you're getting "reviewing my work" from. I'm talking about reviews of Dawson's work, i.e., the focus of this discussion. You clearly misunderstood my comment. Bridget (talk) 13:04, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- An encyclopedia provide a narrative explaining the significance, contributions, and key facts about a subject. It is not a compilation of opinions or reviews. ash (talk) 14:42, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Reviews, if they are published in reputable venues (like Kirkus or Publishers Weekly or academic journals found via JSTOR) are reliable sources. We base Wikipedia articles on what reliable sources say, including book reviews. We don't do our own analysis of what the "significance" or "contributions" are; that's not our job. XOR'easter (talk) 20:40, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- An encyclopedia provide a narrative explaining the significance, contributions, and key facts about a subject. It is not a compilation of opinions or reviews. ash (talk) 14:42, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Ashlar: Not sure where you're getting "reviewing my work" from. I'm talking about reviews of Dawson's work, i.e., the focus of this discussion. You clearly misunderstood my comment. Bridget (talk) 13:04, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Please remove my name from your comment. I did not "expand" the article, I deleted material that was inappropriate, which you re-added. Also, you didn't do anything "alongside" me - you undermined my efforts and your reference to "reviewing my work" is paternalistic and offensive. (Also, there is no need to mention me as the changes are logged in the history.) ash (talk) 03:24, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Delete This page appears to be primarily used for self-promotion and does not meet the notability criteria for inclusion. The subject's accomplishments, while noteworthy on a personal level, do not seem to rise to the level of broader significance required for an encyclopedic entry. Efforts to edit and improve the article to remove non-encyclopedic content have been repeatedly overridden, with additional irrelevant and subjective content being added. This raises concerns about possible conflicts of interest or undue bias in favor of the subject. I recommend deletion due to lack of notability and the continued introduction of non-encyclopedic content. ash (talk) 18:49, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Ashlar What content is non encyclopedic? This is pretty standard for an author, I'd say. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:59, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- This is an encyclopedia not Linkedin or Goodreads. She's not a person of any particular note (in Canada) or otherwwise. She hasn't won any awards nor does the article disclose any lasting and significant impact in the field or on society, beyond routine career milestones. And because she's not really notable, the article relies too heavily on, and is padded with weak secondary sources.ash (talk) 03:27, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- You don't have to be "a person of particular note", her works must be notable themself, which they are, through reviews and other content. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:33, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Respectfully, disagree. WP:BIO WP:AUTHOR ash (talk) 02:13, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- You don't have to be "a person of particular note", her works must be notable themself, which they are, through reviews and other content. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:33, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- This is an encyclopedia not Linkedin or Goodreads. She's not a person of any particular note (in Canada) or otherwwise. She hasn't won any awards nor does the article disclose any lasting and significant impact in the field or on society, beyond routine career milestones. And because she's not really notable, the article relies too heavily on, and is padded with weak secondary sources.ash (talk) 03:27, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Ashlar What content is non encyclopedic? This is pretty standard for an author, I'd say. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:59, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- Keep seems to pass WP:NAUTHOR. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:59, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: Notable under WP:NAUTHOR criteria #3 as she has multiple comic/graphic novels where she is the illustrator and/or author which have received multiple reviews in reliable sources. Nnev66 (talk) 04:18, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Looks like a WP:AUTHOR pass by the usual route. XOR'easter (talk) 20:42, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- 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.