Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lisa Unger

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. SNOW keep. DGG ( talk ) 06:10, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Unger[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBIO. Sites such as primary sources, interviews, Amazon, and Goodreads are not reliable sources. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 05:37, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly, unambiguously, without a trace of doubt passes GNG, as the simplest google news search shows. I guess if you're a women, 14 books and endless coverage is just not enough. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:24, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG. 14 novels, 2 million plus copies, translated into 26 languages. However, the article could really do with some better sources, so I've made a start and added one to back up the 2 million sales. Genre fiction like this will often struggle to get reviewed in reliable sources, but there is enough out there. Edwardx (talk) 14:45, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article needs cleanup to remove primary sources (which seems to be happening now), but subject has sufficient coverage in reliable sources to meet notability requirements. Funcrunch (talk) 16:16, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep Poor writing is no reason for deletion. Minimal WP:BEFORE would have confirmed more than enough RS to replace the personal website citations and confirm GNG. SusunW (talk) 16:22, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A quick WP:BEFORE search by the nominator would have shown them that the GNG is definitely met by this author. Review after review after review... what more does the nominator want? Exemplo347 (talk) 16:40, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep Obviously.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:34, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep Sourcing may require fixing, but the subject is plenty notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ser Amantio di Nicolao (talk • contribs) 17:36, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This nomination is a disgrace and the nominator ought to try harder next time. The Drover's Wife (talk) 20:00, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I clicked on the article expecting to find someone self-published (given the nomination criteria) but it clearly appears that this is a high-profile author with significant sales and coverage in several newspapers includes NYT and Washington Post plus NPR. Easy keep per WP:GNG. freshacconci talk to me 21:18, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note I think WP:SNOW applies here. Exemplo347 (talk) 21:55, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. Hmlarson (talk) 01:55, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
error? I have posted on the proposer's talk page as this seems to be a mistake. Obviously notable Victuallers (talk) 10:13, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep. If we assume good faith and competence, an error is the only remaining possibility. Pldx1 (talk) 10:44, 26 February 2017 (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.