Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sandra Miesel

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The result of the debate was Keep (and nom withdrawn). Tyrenius 04:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sandra Miesel

not notable, minor religous and science fiction writer Nick Y. 21:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Delete (was No Vote) Not certain on this one myself, but convinced by the plethora of competing non-notable books for each of her's --Nick Y. 21:25, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Seems adequately published author. The links show some other books not included in the articles. A Separate Star: A Science Fiction Tribute to Rudyard Kipling (1989) , Heads to the Storm (1989). Dlyons493 Talk 21:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Numerous publications. Well-known analyst on the works of Poul Anderson and Gordon R. Dickson, both very well-known SF authors. Fan1967 21:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• comment It seems that she may be notable for writing about other notable authors and books. I understand that is the nature of literary criticism however being a literary critic that adresses famous books and authors does not necessarily make one notable. Appearing on the catholic TV network for interviews, writing for a catholic religous magazine, or appearing at religious conferences doesn't necessarily make someone notable either. I am a published author and speaker on important subjects myself but I'm not notable, just published. I'm not voting delete because I am not qualified to judge. It just seems questionable. Are these books notable??? Widely published and read??? I don't know. Certainly other than the books the other work is definitely not notable.--Nick Y. 21:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Search for her on Amazon. Anyone with that many books published (by real publishers, not vanity) makes the grade IMO. Even if they're not best sellers, they're still in print. Her book on the Da Vinci Code is at Amazon rank #1070 right now, due to that craze. Fan1967 21:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I'm tempted to switch to weak keep, however I'm still not sure that an author who seems to be a puppet for a religion writing a catholic-pop novel with the name of the most popular book on the planet in the title and therefore significant distribution doesn't mean that the author is notable. There are many many non-notable authors out there, she just semms to do a good job of hopping on the latest trend to sell books and push religous ideology. In the larger scheme of things it will be a non-notable book. I understand the notability of anti-davinci code books in general, but a page for each of the authors of such books??--Nick Y. 22:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment On further investigation there are 200+ books on the Da Vinci code and this one is not near the top of the list. There are not wikipedia pages for each of those authors. Leaning towards weak delete.--Nick Y. 22:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I'm sensing an agenda here in the "puppet for a religion" reference, and the assumption that she's "hopping on the latest trend." It's one of the many books debating the claims in the novel. I don't believe her faith automatically labels her as a puppet. The fact is that she was an established writer long before this. Fan1967 22:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I'm Catholic. No agenda here. It just seems that there are many more notable books refuting the da vinci code from a catholic perspective and many more notable contributors to special interest periodicals that don't have wikipedia pages and her other books seem to be similar such as the lord of the rings book she wrote back when that was the craze. Etc. The only reason I am uncertain about my vote is that it is possible she is notable as an academic literary critic. I do not know. I am certain her da vinci code book is not notable relative to others and that there are many more notable religous writers both popular religous writers and academic religous writers. Just thinking it through seriously. Maybe I have too high expectations for notablity?--Nick Y. 22:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Before this AfD I didn't know she'd written a DaVinci book, though I was aware she was a Catholic commentator, so I'm not surprised. I've been reading her analysis of SF for years, especially the Dickson material, which is very good. I think within the genre, as the definitive analyst of two great authors, she's notable. Fan1967 23:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Maybe NPOV language not quoting herself but indicating her expert standing should be added. Thanks for the clarification. I withdraw my nomination--Nick Y. 23:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I have reorganized the article to emphasize her notability. Moving that she has a bachlor's degree to the bottom etc. That way the reader will understand why she has an article. Fan1967 -perhaps you could improve it more being familiar with her work.--Nick Y. 23:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• I've added some stuff on Dickson (which I've just been rereading lately) and also rearranged the article to give fair coverage to both her SF and religious writings. Fan1967 00:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

• Being an authority on a major work of SF makes her notable. Keep per Fan1967. Can't stand Dickson myself, but takes all sorts. Hornplease 06:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Fan1967 and Hornplease. (I thought I recognized that name when I scanned AfD.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Make that Speedy Keep. Nomination withdrawn, and no Delete votes left. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:01, 25 May 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.