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. the consensus is clear after the additional sources have been found. DGG ( talk ) 17:33, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shelley Webb[edit]

Shelley Webb (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)

Still nothing actually suggestive of convincing independent notability, I still confirm my removed PROD. SwisterTwister talk 17:41, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:49, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• What coverage of Webb and/or her book did you find from your WP:BEFORE searches? --Michig (talk) 18:07, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:48, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:48, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:48, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:49, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable journalist and writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:36, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnpacklambert and SwisterTwister:, would you be willing to reconsider this one?E.M.Gregory (talk)

• Keep I had no trouble coverage of her and her book, plus the fact that, according to the Globe and Mail, a hit BBC series Footballers Wives was based on the book. Article needs rewrite, sourcing - what else is new? E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:19, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• A confession and an hypothesis I just realized that I had keyed Webb into the search bar incorrectly: Shelly instead of the correct Shelley. This answers my puzzlement over the fact that the sourcing was incredibly persuasive, but very surprisingly scant. Correct spelling turns up copious book reviews, feature story coverage. My hypothesis is that Nom probably committed the same typo. If that is not the case, Nom's PROD and this AFD sink from extremely careless WP:BEFORE search, to utterly inexplicable editing. You do have to add a keyword because there are a lot of Shelleys Webb out there, and book, TV series were a few years ago.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:32, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Articles like this one from 1997: "Star Splits from Wife Who Found Fame on Her Own" : " AS Neil Webb's career began to wane, his wife's was taking off. Sports presenter Shelley Webb suddenly found their roles reversed as the former England soccer star, unable to hit form after a devastating ankle injury, became 'Mr Mum', staying home to look after the children while her job offers poured in...." found by clicking highbeam searchbar above.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:49, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• It was neither a typo or "sinking", it was the fact that both general searches and WorldCat were showing nothing better (WorldCat only lists 95 libraries, not nearly enough). Although the article may seem somewhat better now, it's only surviving by the fact of the few pieces of attention for her book. SwisterTwister talk 16:19, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that the profile cited just above, is from a profile published in a major daily paper the year BEFORE Webb's book. 2.) That libraries routinely discard popular titles after a few years, as I assume they did with this onetime hit book, a search of WorldCat time limited to ~1999 would be more useful. 3.) I appended merely a source or 2 to the article, which still needs a major edit and sourcing. All that I am arguing here is that sourcing exists. E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:00, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:55, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (strike Delete)-- yes, the book Footballers' Wives Tell Their Tales was popular and had a TV show made from it, but this alone is not sufficient notability for an author of the book. She's otherwise not notable. E.M.Gregory's sources sufficiently establish notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:28, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Sourced article to in-depth interviews about her and her career, more or less randomly used a handful of the in-depth interviews/profiled about her. The Times, The Guardian, The Daily Telegraph more exist. as do more reviews of her book. Lots more press coverage form which article can be expanded. I used a proquest archive search since many of these article were published in ~20 years ago. Writing a popular book and having it made into a TV show that runs for several years does pass WP:AUTHOR, but do note the several interviews I have added, and the fact that more exist. Details of her life can certainly be sourced.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:53, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Looks to be the subject of at least some articles and the book is apparently notable. Not my kind of thing, but seems almost an easy keep.--T. Anthony (talk) 01:41, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Ms. Webb's book, Footballers' Wives Tell Their Tales, is "significant or well-known" as evidenced by its adaptation for a major television show. The cited Telegraph and BBC News articles, while somewhat shaky, appear to be enough to show that the book is "the subject of . . . multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Therefore, the subject satisfies NAUTHOR point 3. Rebbing 03:34, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Note that the question at AFD is not "do sources now in the article suffice?" but, rather, "do the RS that exist in the world suffice?" The reviews I added are neither the sole, nor necessarily the most dispositive, of those that came up on searches, just 2 that happened to come up on a particular set of keywords and that I happened to pick. I have zero interest in this writer; less in football. I do think that some editors bring articles to AFD without WP:BEFORE, that some iVote without searching for sources, and thiat this is unfair to some subjects, such as writer's whose careers took place in the 20th century or earlier, or who have non-unique names, and who therefore may not come up on a quick google search. The implication that unless the sources are on the page, and, sometimes, that unless the article has been edited to remove the WP:PROMO aspects so many articles begin with, changes the nature of AFD. This requires an enormous time investment, an investment far beyond the relatively simple 20-30 minute process of figuring out the proper keywords to use in searching a news archives, figuring out which archives to search, and bringing a sampling of those sources to AFD or to the page itself. (see, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Peterson (author), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Susman.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:45, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep E.M.Gregory has made a compelling case here, and I agree. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:06, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I agree with E.M.Gregory ----Metaphorical analysis (talk) 20:24, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, concerned that once again a nom is (gently?) criticised for not having carried out WP:BEFORE, although recommended they are not actually required to do so, rather the WP:BURDEN is on the editors who add information (especially for blps) to provide sources (but coola, what about the older articles when they didn't need them? oh:)), and to be even more pedantic doesn't WP:AUTHOR point 3 talk of a significant or well-known work having been the subject of a feature-length film not a tv series? anyway, with that rant out of the way:)) this is a keep with multiple reviews/sources, reflected now in the article, thanks to E.M.Gregory (also agree with them about the time it can take to 'rescue' these articles ... if only the creators included enough reliable sourcess in the first place .. sigh ..}. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:35, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • NAUTHOR point 3 requires that the work "must have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." My vote was predicated on the second alternative. Rebbing 15:43, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Coolabahapple and Rebbing: Are you up for revising that guideline? To recognize that books do become notable when TV series are based on them; I would want consider how major the TV series has to be.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:04, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see no reason to limit the deriviative work to specific media types as long as the first work is a primary subject of the derivative work as a whole, not just a short chapter or single episode. I would support amending the language to: "In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Rebbing 16:37, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Rebbing:, I like that wording. Do you want to propose it at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)?E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:41, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think I will. I'll ping you two when I do. Rebbing 00:50, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Rebbing:, @E.M.Gregory:, i would support such wording with perhaps a clarifying footnote that such an independent work is itself notable so in general no 2min student films. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:52, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • Completely agreed. How about: "In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a notable book, film, or television series, but not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews."? Rebbing 00:50, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I stand corrected for my failure of courtesy towards SwisterTwister.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:04, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even if it's not actually required by the guideline ("Prior to nominating article(s) for deletion, please be sure to: . . . .[s]earch for additional sources, if the main concern is notability[.]"), I think the community expects that nominators complete BEFORE part (D) when notability is the reason for deletion, if for no other reason than to spare themselves embarrassment. Rebbing 16:37, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • acknowledge this is so, also that editors need to heed WP:ARTN, that "Article content does not determine notability", when thinking about nominating. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:52, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Definitely! That should be like AFD 101. I follow that advice anytime I'm at AFD except when it comes to borderline-notable subjects whose articles would need to be completely rewritten (not merely trimmed) not to be promotional: I don't think PR firms should get a "buy one, get one free" article off us. Otherwise, before deleting, I always spend several minutes with the "find sources" links (and add additional ones if the subject could be known by a different name or needs distinguishing keywords, e.g., "'Jane Smith' Ontario soccer"). I still manage to vote "delete" most of the time, but it's never based on whim. Rebbing 00:50, 15 August 2016 (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.