Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jen Knox

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. Davewild (talk) 06:51, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jen Knox

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

Non-notable person. Many of the sources are primary, not many good, reliable sources. Only won some obscure awards. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:14, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~weak~~ delete with reluctance, because she is a published writer, and Wikipedia is a useful source on minor writers. Problem is there are lots of references, but they are to stories she published (with a short bio in the credit line), or interviews on her personal web page, even the link i Poets & Writers" seems to be more of a listing for her business as a writing coach. The closest it comes to a reliable secondary source is to an interview in a non-bluelinked online literary magazine, works (of fiction) in progress. It doesn't seem to be quite enough. Willing to revisit this iVote if someone can find stuff (I tried and failed) that is about her (not by her) in a RS. E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:26, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promotional article (advert) fails WP:BASIC and WP:AUTHOR. Logical Cowboy (talk) 02:39, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ I find this review in her local paper [1] and a press notice that her book can be pre-ordered and will be released in May, 2015 here [2] and here [3], so there isn't press on it yet. She has won a lot of awards for her fiction, all of which are verifiable with external sourcing. (I tried not to duplicate the ones already on the page. [4], [5], [6],[7], [8], [9], [10], [11] She is still a new artist, but that she is winning recognition and secured publishing for a book, looks to meet GNG. @E.M.Gregory: want to look again? SusunW (talk) 06:45, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Local press coverage and press releases for a future book don't really help here. I think you are making the case even weaker, if that is possible. Logical Cowboy (talk) 12:10, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Logical Cowboy: I disagree with your assessment. What we need ARE local press pieces and coverage from third party sources that are not press or PR written by the author herself. Each of the award links I found is from an external source and adds to building her notability. The pieces on her upcoming work were not part of notability but to say that she is following the typical trajectory for established artists — writing for her college paper, publishing individual pieces and then publishing a collection of pieces. She is building her craft. SusunW (talk) 15:54, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply So you agree that "she is building her craft" is not relevant to this discussion about notability? Seems to outside of WP policy. Also your list of "awards" that she has "won" is rather wishful. It is mainly a list of honorable mentions, nominations, third prizes, etc. Logical Cowboy (talk) 17:48, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All artists are constantly building their craft. I am reminded of VanGogh's painting 1000 haystacks. No one is arguing that she is a Pulitzer Prize winner. What the awards show is that her work is being recognized. SusunW (talk) 18:54, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:10, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong KeepThis appears to be a good, well-written article with feasible opportunity to get even better. It succeeds in indicating the subjects notability and it is sourced. The sources are average but among them some are quite relevant and are third party. I think this article could be improved and currently it does have notability. If we delete it then we preclude any opportunity for improvement. Thank you Trout71 (talk) 10:55, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Those comments are basically WP:AADD. Comments such as "it can get better," "it indicates notability," and "if deleted then it can't be created again" are not legitimate on WP. I encourage any reader to discount these comments, which may be well-intentioned from a new account. Logical Cowboy (talk) 12:05, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia, User:Trout71. It can take a while to learn the ropes. For example, on an AFD page it is necessary to argue from policy, and to engage arguments made by other editors.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:07, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks to User:SusunW for finding a 2011 review of Knox's collection of short stories published by a small literary press in a San Antonio Express-News. But at this point it is the only published source that really counts towards notability. The Next Generation Indie Book Award ( $100 prize Knox shared in the category Short Fiction) is a real if minor award. It still does not seem like quite enough. I would propose moving it into userspace, so that the article could be edited (too much hype, detail) while we wait to see if the novel (due out from a small, literary, "publishing collective" in May [12]) gets some attention. An interview or feature and a review or two in RS (not blogs) would do it. Unfortunately, the author of the article was a sadly incompetent professional writer of WP articles User:Balaji E.M who seems to have ceased editing. So I don't see who would userfy it. I differ with User:SusunW only in degree, I think that at this point Knox hasn't attracted quite enough attention to pass WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:26, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you E.M.Gregory I'll do some more checking. I found some other possibilities, but did not have time to search them further last night. I do not live in the US so some information available there is not available here. In and of themselves the small awards are not important, but taken together, they show that her work is being recognized and all are verified on external links, which is key to establishing whether she is or is not notable. I agree the article needs clean-up and more sourcing. I'll see what else I can find since it was relisted for more discussion. SusunW (talk) 15:54, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I also found two additional reviews of her work by unaffiliated small publishers [13] and [14]. Would that someone from the Wiki Writer's Project would weigh in. Would help to have someone with specialized knowledge of this field, IMO. SusunW (talk) 18:54, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I just realized what you meant by "professional writer" of articles. He was paid to create the page by her. Which IMO taints everything. I concur E.M.Gregory it seems best to move it to userspace and see what happens after her book comes out. SusunW (talk) 19:07, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I started trying to improve the article -- copyediting and ref formatting -- after it was mentioned to me on my talkpage. However, I just noticed that the article creator, Balaji E.M, is a paid editor, paid to create the article for the subject. So for now, I'm going to stop working on it. Either it'll end up meeting WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR, or it won't. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:09, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ― Padenton|✉ 01:34, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Many references are affiliated -- from professional orgs, etc. She's won a couple of awards, so it's possible she'll eventually be notable, but WP:TOOSOON valereee (talk) 14:18, 12 May 2015 (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.