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The result was withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure). Raymie (t • c) 03:52, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Camryn Garrett (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)

Kirkus is no longer a reliable source or book reviews, so Publishers Weekly by itself isn't enough for notability. the rest is PR and puffery DGG ( talk ) 05:35, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:00, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:00, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not even close to meeting the notability guidelines for novelists.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:15, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I am surprised by the nomination as the subject meets GNG, as demonstrated by the inclusion of several articles from reliable sources: Teen Vogue, Entertainment Weekly, Metro, and Glamour. At minimum, this article can be draftified as every statement in the article is properly cited. Citrivescence (talk) 18:27, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

look at the articles in Vogue etc--they're promotional write ups. For example, the one in Teen Vogue is an interview where she says whatever she cares to about herself, and is therefore not independent. Getting such articles is a routine part of the job of press agents, and we should not be letting them expand their activities here. DGG ( talk ) 20:17, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep, speedy close. I usually agree with DGG. but both his judgment and his searching skills have abandoned him in this case. Aside from the PW review, it takes little effort to turn up reviews in School Library Journal, Financial Times, the Irish Times, and the Bulletin of the Center for Children's Books, an academic journal. Worldcat apparently turns up over 500 library holdings. It's not surprising that an author of a YA novel marketed mainly to young women is covered mainly in magazines aimed at young women, where the level of prose may be a bit less sophisticated, but Teen Vogue, for example, has a reputation for particularly substantive coverage, and EW has no reason to turn over control of its pages to an obscure first novelist. The sourcing here is far superior to that in the typical pro wrestler BLP, and quite a few subjects merit favorable coverage. Not every college student has publicly disgraced themself. The other delete !vote is profoundly uninformed and serves only to show that the editor who cast it deserves no credibility. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 23:15, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Teen vogue does have a reputation for sophisticated coverage considering the genre, , and its article is a well-written sophisticated promotional interview. Entertainment Weekly's review is however a full editorial review, and I therefore withdraw the AfD request. DGG ( talk ) 23:35, 9 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.