Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anna Nicholas

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 delete‎. ✗plicit 06:45, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Nicholas

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

After reviewing the article it came to my attention that the person this article is about does not meet the notability criteria for creative professionals since:

- There is no readily available evidence to suggest that Anna Nicholas is widely cited by her peers or successors, or that she is considered an "important figure" within the broader literary community.

- It is unlikely that Anna Nicholas has originated a significant new concept, theory, or technique within the literary field. Her work, while potentially popular, does not appear to have revolutionized or significantly altered literary practices.

-While Anna Nicholas has published books, it is questionable whether these works have been the "primary subject" of "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" that meet Wikipedia's standards of notability. Simply having reviews or mentions is insufficient; the reviews must be substantial and from reputable sources. It must be demonstrated that the books have had a significant cultural impact.

- There is no evidence to suggest that Anna Nicholas's works have achieved any of these criteria. Her books do not appear to have become "significant monuments," been part of significant exhibitions, received exceptional critical attention, or been included in notable gallery or museum collections. Fatimald (talk) 05:57, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Women, and United Kingdom. Fatimald (talk) 05:57, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Interestingly there is a recent review of one of her books in the Telegraph[1] but also two recent bylines[2][3] so this cannot be considered an independent source. Doesn't meet WP:NAUTHOR and article is largely unchanged from the one she herself originally created 17 years ago. Orange sticker (talk) 08:18, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Travel and tourism, Spain, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can only find the Telegraph review used in the article, not enough to meet AUTHOR. With one or two more book reviews we should have AUTHOR notability, but I don't see any. Oaktree b (talk) 13:46, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since Telegraph article is not independent and failing other reliable sources the article does not have enough to be kept. Iljhgtn (talk) 19:29, 13 April 2025 (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.