Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Annalena McAfee

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 of the debate was keep.  RasputinAXP  c 20:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Annalena McAfee

Only claim of notability seems to be her participation as a judge for the Orange Prize for Fiction. 708 Google hits. Delete. Ral315 (talk) 03:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Her claim to notability is that she's editor of the Guardian's literary supplement, as well as the author of a number of children's books published by a good sized house [1]. The books are mostly out of print, but that doesn't seem relevant. --djrobgordon 04:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete Even the Grauniad doesn't seem to think she's all that notable, but then again maybe they just misspelled her name. ~ trialsanderrors 05:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. A Sunday Times article from 2001 refered to her as head of the Guardian's literary section in an article on the Samuel Johnson Award which she was a judge for as well as the Orange Prize for Fiction. The ACT Public Library system has six of her books on the shelves which suggests that have had a reasonable distribution. Her work seems to have been reviewed in publications such as the Times Literary Supplement and the New Statesman. She seems notable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster 07:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. As per WP:BIO, "The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field.", and the Orange Prize is part of such a record in the field of literature. Tevildo 10:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Being editor of the Guardian Review means she is quite a big deal on the English literary scene, as well as being an established children's author who's worked with good publishers and illustrators. I've expanded the article a bit to show her involvement in lit. prizes and festivals, and her kids' books translated into other languages. --HJMG 10:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Editor of the Guardian Review definitely makes her notable. Ben W Bell talk 10:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Cleanup article a bit, use citations, but subject does meet notability. Parsssseltongue 19:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Not to pile-on, but people should really pause and search before they instantly claim a lack of notability. — 199 19:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I considered changing my vote based on the recent comments, but the only thing I see are further assertions and I only respond to evidence. It is incumbent on the editor (or in extension on those voting for keep) to establish notability rather than assert or assume it, or pass the burden on the nominator. ~ trialsanderrors 22:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• But the article did establish notability by stating that she was an editor of the Guardian, a writer of six books, and a judge for the Orange Prize. Each keep vote has agreed that these are reasonable examples of notability. Indeed, I've crossed out "search" above: it's true that one shouldn't have to search for notability before nominating, but the notability here was right there in the artcile. — 199 15:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per djrobgordon. Mangojuice^talk 05:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per all the above. In any event, a judge for a major literary award is ipso facto notable. Metamagician3000 09:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep — Marginally notable. — RJH (talk) 16:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Fine, let his stupid wife stay. Skinnyweed 22:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

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.