421:. No, while PW does rely on interns to read and write reviews, it isn't the type of site where they accept submissions from just anyone. Anyone can submit a book for a potential review, but that isn't a guarantee that it'll be reviewed nor that it'll be a positive one if it's reviewed. PW tends to be pretty generous with reviews, but it's pretty much up to the person who is reviewing it. I've seen them write some pretty scathing reviews of books in the past. I usually prefer to have PW as a backup to other, more in-depth reviews though. As far as sources go, there's less than I'd normally like but River Front Times and the St. Louis Dispatch aren't exactly sources to sneeze at. In any case, in order to get PW to post your review or column you'd have to pretty much be employed by them in some format (intern, standard employee, etc). It's not as easy as you submitting a review or article and having them post it, which is why the website's been usable as a source in the past.
445:
hundred each also. In general, even if it is only one book, it makes more sense to write the article about the author, as the author may write more (and generally does, if one becomes notable) & so there is potential for expansion. I agree exactly with
Tokyogirl about PW. It is very selective, though the reviews are quite brief; it is used primarily by librarians, & concentrates on the books they are likely to buy--which are as well as they can predict it, the ones likely to become notable
313:
be notable enough for an article. The thing about the articles/subjects that the Wiki-for-pay authors create is that if they are notable or have something notable about them, that the subject was originally created in a semi-sleazy manner is sort of irrelevant. It just means that it'd have to be properly sourced and edited for any promotional tone. (Can you tell I hate the wiki-for-pay editors?) Hopefully the WFP editor has been blocked or is at least being watched by the admins, though.
223:. I'm looking for sources, but if I can't find any then it might be worthwhile to create an article for Fashionistas and then use her name as a redirect if that ends up being the only thing she's notable for. I'm finding that there should be reviews for the book out there, so if all else fails then that could be a potential outcome.
312:
if we have enough RS. I'm finding quite a bit of attention for the book in the Google news archives, so I'm leaning towards creating an article for the book, deleting the author's page, and using it as a redirect to the
Fashionistas novel's article. She's done other works, but none of those appear to
382:
Here's a question though- if I were to make an article focusing on
Fashionistas, could we use the same sources in both articles? I've not really read anything that says we can't, but I've always leaned towards putting everything in the same article if I had to use the same sources to RS different
444:
As she has written more than one significant book. Fashinstas is in 484 libraries, Little vampire women -- which looks like a fascinating rewrite of Little Women (", the girls are vampires and neighbor Laurie wants to join them." according to the WorldCat entry) has 523; the other 3 have several
383:
articles. (In other words, I didn't have enough RS to put different ones in each article.) If we can't or if it's discouraged, would there be enough RS for
Messina's article if I were to create a Fashionistas article or would it be better to just have the one article with a ton of sources?
400:. Can't anyone post anything they want on Publishers Weekly? If so, those refs don't mean a thing (and reek of puffery at any rate). I'm still looking, but I haven't seen anything that makes me think that either the author or the book is notable enough for inclusion.
264:
It should be noted that the article was created by an editor who appears to be a "Wikipedian for hire": he has created 15 articles in a single day, and they all have been speedily deleted, tagged for speedy deletion, or nominated for deletion at AFD.
164:
350:
352:
203:
which is claimed (without citation given nor any to be found) to be a national bestseller, and which was optioned by a producer in 2004, but never developed into a film.
158:
119:
283:
243:
doesn't appear that notable in itself. Claims that it is a bestseller can't be verified, and the movie deal is eight years old, but has gone nowhere.
124:
354:
308:. Be that as it may, if I can find reviews and coverage in reliable sources to show that the book received attention, it'd still pass
92:
87:
272:
250:
210:
96:
17:
346:
179:
79:
146:
342:
540:
40:
344:
140:
369:
136:
536:
519:
488:
456:
430:
426:
409:
392:
388:
373:
331:
322:
318:
297:
276:
254:
232:
228:
214:
61:
57:
36:
515:
186:
172:
365:
405:
293:
83:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
535:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
500:
466:
422:
384:
314:
224:
53:
511:
309:
152:
339:
479:
266:
244:
204:
452:
196:
348:
337:
335:
333:
401:
289:
75:
67:
113:
356:
She's written a number of books that have received press attention, particularly
503:
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
469:
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
447:
529:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
109:
105:
101:
171:
510:
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
199:
author. Only claim to fame appears to be the novel
476:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
543:). No further edits should be made to this page.
185:
8:
284:list of Authors-related deletion discussions
282:Note: This debate has been included in the
281:
7:
24:
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
560:
489:06:07, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
457:04:55, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
431:04:24, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
410:18:43, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
393:16:07, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
374:14:15, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
323:04:11, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
298:01:19, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
277:19:28, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
255:19:26, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
233:18:47, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
215:17:30, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
62:12:22, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
532:Please do not modify it.
520:12:55, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
32:Please do not modify it.
362:Little Vampire Women
341:and other mentions
48:The result was
522:
491:
487:
300:
287:
551:
534:
509:
505:
486:
484:
477:
475:
471:
288:
269:
247:
207:
190:
189:
175:
127:
117:
99:
34:
559:
558:
554:
553:
552:
550:
549:
548:
547:
541:deletion review
530:
498:
480:
478:
464:
275:
267:
253:
245:
213:
205:
132:
123:
90:
74:
71:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
557:
555:
546:
545:
525:
524:
523:
507:
506:
495:
494:
493:
492:
473:
472:
461:
460:
459:
438:
437:
436:
435:
434:
433:
413:
412:
395:
377:
376:
325:
302:
301:
279:
271:
258:
257:
249:
235:
209:
193:
192:
129:
70:
65:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
556:
544:
542:
538:
533:
527:
526:
521:
517:
513:
508:
504:
502:
497:
496:
490:
485:
483:
474:
470:
468:
463:
462:
458:
454:
450:
449:
443:
440:
439:
432:
428:
424:
420:
417:
416:
415:
414:
411:
407:
403:
399:
396:
394:
390:
386:
381:
380:
379:
378:
375:
371:
367:
366:Colapeninsula
363:
359:
355:
353:
351:
349:
347:
345:
343:
340:
338:
336:
334:
332:
329:
326:
324:
320:
316:
311:
307:
304:
303:
299:
295:
291:
285:
280:
278:
274:
270:
263:
260:
259:
256:
252:
248:
242:
239:
236:
234:
230:
226:
222:
219:
218:
217:
216:
212:
208:
202:
198:
188:
184:
181:
178:
174:
170:
166:
163:
160:
157:
154:
151:
148:
145:
142:
138:
135:
134:Find sources:
130:
126:
121:
115:
111:
107:
103:
98:
94:
89:
85:
81:
77:
73:
72:
69:
66:
64:
63:
59:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
531:
528:
499:
481:
465:
446:
441:
418:
397:
361:
358:Fashionistas
357:
327:
305:
261:
241:Fashionistas
240:
237:
220:
200:
194:
182:
176:
168:
161:
155:
149:
143:
133:
76:Lynn Messina
68:Lynn Messina
50:no consensus
49:
47:
31:
28:
423:Tokyogirl79
385:Tokyogirl79
330:per reviews
315:Tokyogirl79
225:Tokyogirl79
201:Fashionstas
159:free images
54:Crisco 1492
512:Tom Morris
482:Sandstein
537:talk page
290:• Gene93k
268:WikiDan61
246:WikiDan61
206:WikiDan61
37:talk page
539:or in a
501:Relisted
467:Relisted
310:WP:NBOOK
273:ReadMe!!
251:ReadMe!!
211:ReadMe!!
120:View log
39:or in a
419:Comment
402:Heather
398:Comment
306:Comment
238:Comment
221:Comment
197:notable
165:WP refs
153:scholar
93:protect
88:history
137:Google
97:delete
453:talk
180:JSTOR
141:books
125:Stats
114:views
106:watch
102:links
52:. —
16:<
516:talk
442:Keep
427:talk
406:talk
389:talk
370:talk
364:. --
360:and
328:Keep
319:talk
294:talk
229:talk
195:Non-
173:FENS
147:news
110:logs
84:talk
80:edit
58:talk
448:DGG
187:TWL
122:•
118:– (
518:)
455:)
429:)
408:)
391:)
372:)
321:)
296:)
286:.
262:PS
231:)
167:)
112:|
108:|
104:|
100:|
95:|
91:|
86:|
82:|
60:)
514:(
451:(
425:(
404:(
387:(
368:(
317:(
292:(
227:(
191:)
183:·
177:·
169:·
162:·
156:·
150:·
144:·
139:(
131:(
128:)
116:)
78:(
56:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.