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. Scott Mac 18:49, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kay Sloan

[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO, WP:ACADEMIC, WP:AUTHOR. Not notable. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:53, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:56, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. Her work is notable, just not notable enough to meet the criteria for WP:AUTHOR. It is possible that I am missing something in her biography, but I do not think so. --Crunch (talk)
Delete. Agree with nom. GS h index = 6. Not enough. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:12, 18 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 16:01, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I think she passes WP:Author #3 as a person who has created significant work that has been the subject of multiple independent reviews. Have added some refs to selected publications to support this. (Msrasnw (talk) 11:41, 19 February 2011 (UTC))[reply]

I have tried to tidy the article a little: There are now 3 secondary sources reviewing one her books, 3 reviewing another and 5 reviewing one of her novels. Her film also has a secondary source. There is also an interview with her in the Southern Scribe (January, Vol. 6, No. 1 2005). (Msrasnw (talk) 11:22, 20 February 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Don't appear to be reliable or independent... Abductive (reasoning) 12:47, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why might The Journal of American History, The American Historical Review, and Film Quarterly, for example, not be considered reliable or independent? (Msrasnw (talk) 12:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Those are journals that published her. I'm referring to "sources" such as Barnes & Noble Discover Great New Writers, sources about her. Abductive (reasoning) 13:02, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you might have misread how these sources are being used in the article. The citations in these are to reviews of her work. I have also added the PBS bio details to those from Southern Scribe and Women Make Movies. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 13:15, 20 February 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Delete. Has an h-index of 3 or 4. There are 129,000,000 million books in the world, and about as many authors. No reliable, independent secondary sources treat this person. Abductive (reasoning) 03:46, 20 February 2011 (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.