Megan Dowd Lambert: We need evidence of substantive discussion of the subject (not her works) in multiple reliable independent published sources to retain this article.  A loose necktie ( talk ) 07:54, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Authors , Women , Massachusetts ,  and Vermont .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:00, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Oh.  Wow.  The nomination is beyond inappropriate.  It is not accurate.  It needs to be withdrawn by the nominator or at the very least part of it stricken.  I said she meets WP: CREATIVE #3 when I created the article.  She exceeds that.  We've got coverage of her education, career, personal life.  That coverage is in both Contemporary Authors and Something about the Author , which are beyond independent of her--they are 2 of the most respected publications in the field.  We have where she's lived and some of what she's accomplished.  We have how many links to reviews, some of them starred reviews , further satisfying CREATIVE #3?  What is it you are not seeing @ A loose necktie ?  Do you want to know where she went to high school, her date of birth (which many authors and others keep private for identity security reasons and which is irrelevant to notability)?  The article is also lacking her hair color, eye color, height, and political and religious beliefs.  Do you envision The Atlantic or CNN going into which Beatle or New Kid or Backstreet Boy was her favorite when she was a teen?  Or do you think stub articles on notable women authors and academics should not exist?  DiamondRemley39 ( talk ) 09:33, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Wow.   It sounds like you are looking for a fight.   I am not up for it.  A loose necktie ( talk ) 10:24, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] In cases such as this one, when it's been pointed out you were, at best, unaware of subject-specific notability guidelines and did not complete the required WP:BEFORE , you may be more comfortable not responding.  That's okay.  Mischaracterizing sources and scope of the article in a nomination statement is a problematic.  Problematic nomination statements should, can, and will be called out.  However, curiously echoing my "wow" and then choosing to withdraw from the debate with what is treading close to incivility ("It sounds like you are looking for a fight") is.. .  eh.  @ A loose necktie , please assume good faith of editors.  You created a debate and placed an invitation to it on my talk page.  I wrote about your points .  You wrote about me .  Who is looking for what here?  DiamondRemley39 ( talk ) 11:58, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .   I'm seeing enough reviews for a solid pass of WP:NAUTHOR .   One would expect that sources about an author would mainly discuss their written work; routine facts can be filled in per WP:SPS , or (better, and as in this article) by profiles in a bibliographic encyclopedia.  Russ Woodroofe ( talk ) 10:18, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep per WP:CREATIVE and nomination statement mischaracterizes article and sources.  Problematic.  DiamondRemley39 ( talk ) 12:00, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Meets WP:Author .  Thriley ( talk ) 12:01, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Per WP:Author .  ULPS ( talk ) 13:23, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per AUTHOR and a poor overall nom rationale; the books are enough to clinch her N and I would not hope we need so much detail about her life over her published works.  And if you're not up to defend your nom at all, Loose, I suggest withdrawing it so we don't have to deal with any further incommunication from that decision; you nominate, you defend and listen.  Nate • ( chatter ) 13:40, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The whole argument that book reviews "don't tell us anything about the author" makes no sense.  People are noteworthy because of their accomplishments; an author's accomplishments are their books.  XOR'easter ( talk ) 13:49, 12 May 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: speedy keep