Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Hoyt

Sarah Hoyt

Sarah Hoyt (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)

I was unaware that this page existed until its proposed deletion was removed by what appears to be a WP:CANVASsed editor on another page. After spending time reviewing the page and attempting to google the author I believe the original proposer may have been correct that the subject has not demonstrated notability.

• Of eleven sources on the page, all but one source back to either Archive.org remnants of her old personal website or to her husband's website.
• The final source on the page is a podcast.
• Some of the content appears plagiarized from other websites or promotional materials from the publisher such as book jacket author bio text. The text of the Writing section appears copied verbatim from fan site https://www.risingshadow.net/library/author/567-sarah-a-hoyt.

I am starting this discussion in hopes that these issues can be reviewed and the article appropriately addressed in whatever form that takes. Imadethisstupidaccount (talk) 12:49, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:53, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:53, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:53, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:54, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

• While it's clear that the article needs some dressing up, Sarah Hoyt is a fairly well-known author. She is definitely notable. I'll see what I can do. The article should be kept. Sam Paris (talk) 13:04, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

• Strong Keep: Frankly you can't be serious, she won the Prometheus Award in 2011. https://www.tor.com/2019/04/08/40-years-of-the-prometheus-award Stephen W. Houghton II 135.84.167.203 (talk) 13:21, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

• Sarah Hoyt is a well known author, Dragon award winner (as it says on the page), Prometheus award winner (as it says on the page). There should be no question that the subject is notable. The page may not be widely sourced -- I'll see if I can find some material to add to the links -- but the page should clearly be kept. (Note: I went back and added some external references to improve the page) User:rodkinnison5 —Preceding undated comment added 13:24, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

• Keep Has an entry in the Encyclopedia of Science Fiction, which is an excellent reference work. Andrew D. (talk) 14:36, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
• Weak Keep She has won two awards, which may establish notability. And some press coverage []. The article needs work, it is too hagiographic and over reliant on primary sources. But she does seem just about notable.Slatersteven (talk) 15:03, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
• Keep. As others have noted, the awards listed in the infobox are sufficient to establish notability. Deli nk (talk) 15:19, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
• Keep This author and editor is obviously notable and well-established. desmay (talk) 18:04, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
• Keep While I am not personally fond of Hoyt, she easily meets Wikipedia's notability criteria. Simonm223 (talk) 18:46, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
• Draftify The current sources are abominable. Trillfendi (talk) 22:52, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

I like this suggestion from Trillfendi. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 01:56, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

• Procedural close and open a Peer review instead. AfD is for nominating articles for deletion, not for asking articles to be improved. --letcreate123 (talk) 01:43, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

• Keep obviously notable author. There are far less notable articles throughout the wiki. 107.77.215.170 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:46, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
• Speedy keep, (what is all this white fluffy stuff?) easily meets WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG as brought out by above editors, another waste of time for afd editors, how many times does it have to be said - article content does not determine notability, it really doesn't matter how badly written an article is, if the subject is notable, then, they're notable, i note that even prior to the article being prodded, it stated that Hoyt has won the Prometheus Award (PA) - (see here), this alone means that she meets WP:ANYBIO, so if the nominator had been bothered to going to the PA article they would have seen her name there, not only as a winner but also as a finalist on multiple occasions, as for this afd being reinstated by Bbb23 (see here) (after being non-admin closed by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (see here)) with the comment "you cannot do that", um yes they can, having a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How an AfD discussion is closed and WP:NACD, this is almost a text book case of an afd being closed early ie. editor is experienced, uninvolved, registered; and the outcome at the time was a slamdunk "keep" (4 of the 6 editors specified "keep", the other 2 while not specifying "keep" testified to Hoyt's notability). Coolabahapple (talk) 02:40, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
• Speedy keep, this nomination of the AfD appears to be without even minimal foundation. Sarah Hoyt is notable enough to have received multiple awards and national press coverage over the years. It looks like the article has already been improved a bit with better sources, which is really what needed to happen. 136.57.207.196 (talk) 03:54, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I am saddened to see that there is obvious WP:CANVASsing going on here but I also see good arguments regarding the notability despite it not having been sourced before in the article. My question is which option is most likely to craft a good article back. Is it the WP:DRAFTIFY process suggested by Trillfendi or the WP:Peer Review option suggested by Letcreate123? I am fully willing to rescind my nomination to whichever of these is the best option as long as consensus can be agreed to on what will most likely make a good article. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 04:09, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

6YearsTillRetirement, why did you add the bogus signature" Imadethisstupidaccount" to your nomination, instead of using your actual account signature?ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:25, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

OK, I see now Imadethisstupidaccount was required to change their user name to 6YearsTillRetirement.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:59, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

• Comment, from above "I am saddened to see that there is obvious WP:CANVASsing going on here.", 6YearsTillRetirement, that is a pretty serious accusation, please provide details that this has indeed happened, otherwise please retract. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:11, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

• ps. not that i would ever do this (oh really, coola?:)) but while aspersions are being thrown around, some editors might find it strange that a brand new editor ie. 1st edit made on 22 July 2019, is jumping right into afd nominations....? Coolabahapple (talk) 07:33, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

• See . Multiple individuals including one now banned for some incredibly vile harassment are WP:CANVASsing for this and other articles. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 12:35, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

• When there's a concerted effort to purge conservative SF writers, you can bet there will be a backlash. -- Jay Maynard (talk) 15:42, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Well there isn't, no matter how many times you tell that ugly, false, inciteful and hateful lie. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 15:45, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep The article itself is lacking and could use a rewrite or two, but the author has won multiple significant awards (as indicated in the infobox) and has received significant coverage. AaronCanton (talk) 07:47, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
• 6YearsTillRetirement, you were quite right that the article needed work and you brought up legitimate concerns. But I think notability has now been established clearly enough that there is every indication that the article will survive AfD. Would you be okay with a speedy close now? Improvement of the article will hopefully continue and discussion of it can be taken up in other forums. Haukur (talk) 08:50, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
• Trillfendi, you were right that reliable sources were lacking. But some good work has taken place since then and will hopefully continue. Would you be okay with closing the current discussion? Haukur (talk) 08:50, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

• @Haukurth: Not to be impolite but I am not ok with a speedy close. I don't think a request for consensus on what will be the path forward between WP:DRAFTIFY or WP:Peer Review is really too much to ask, so that whatever the consensus is it can be implemented in a reasonable time frame? 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 12:38, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

• No worries, I don't think you're being impolite. But I do think we'd be better off ending the discussion, which seems to be further riling people up. A speedy keep by you withdrawing the nomination would have been the simplest way but failing that we can probably get an admin to do a WP:SNOW close. I would have but I'm too WP:INVOLVED. Haukur (talk) 16:05, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep or WP:SNOW Keep. The Prometheus Award and Dragon Awards and write up in The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction are more than enough to satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (people). Edgeweyes (talk) 12:50, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
• Keep notability clearly exists.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 13:22, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
• Strong keep What will it take for a conservative author to be considered notable?! Every AfD like this just cements the notion that there's a purge of politically incorrect writers going on. Sarah is a multple award winner, never mind having a large body of work and selling consistently well both in traditional publishing and self-published forms. If Wikipedia were truly NPOV, this and other AfDs for conservative writers would be speedy closed. -- Jay Maynard (talk) 15:41, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Again, this has nothing to do with the author's political views, no matter how many times you tell that ugly and inciteful lie. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 15:46, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm not the one doing the inciting. The ones going after conservative writers are. -- Jay Maynard (talk) 15:58, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

@Jmaynard: & @6YearsTillRetirement: - Enough. The two of you cut it out with the hostility and accusations. Try and discuss the deletion like mature beings without flaming each other or throwing nonsensical politics stuff into the mix. The matter at hand is "does the article subject meet the notability guidelines?", not "what is the political alignment of the subject?". This is not a battleground. --letcreate123 (talk) 16:14, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

• REQUEST As I said to @Haukurth: above, I am happy to rescind this nomination once the next step - either WP:DRAFTIFY or WP:Peer Review - is agreed on by consensus. Will those who responded PLEASE INDICATE THEIR PREFERRED OPTION? 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 16:10, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

  Fair enough, let's do WP:Peer Review. Haukur (talk) 16:15, 24 July 2019 (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.