Talk:C.S. O'Cinneide

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Arts and Entertainment

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Women writers Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Notability[edit]

Not at all clear how she passes WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR. Theroadislong (talk) 14:23, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The author was recently nominated for a major literary award (Goodreads Choice Awards 2019) and her novel, Petra's Ghost was featured in a major newspaper (The Toronto Star), and also by the American Library Association Book Club Central. I have added some additional citations to sources that specifically reference the author rather than just mentioning her or her books in a larger article. I hope this addresses the issue you raised. If you feel that it does, may I remove the maintenance tag? Many thanks for your input MarcusK0100 (talk) 14:36, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that being being nominated for those awards makes her notable, though. Theroadislong (talk) 14:43, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in agreement with Theroadislong. Being nominated for an award isn't enough to meet WP:AUTHOR, and she can't really be said to meet any of the other criteria of that guideline. That leaves WP:GNG, and the sources aren't really good enough. I don't think that, as it stands, it would pass an AFD and I would probably go down that route, but I was going to leave it a few days to see if it could be improved, or if I could find any better sources first. Hug^syrup 14:50, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a quote from the Toronto Star article that comments on the author's unique structuring of a novel around a traditional Christian pilgrimage despite the overwhelming secular, even atheist tone of our times. I'm hoping this will help to meet the criteria warranting a specific and unique contribution by the author in her field.MarcusK0100 (talk) 15:15, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly this comes no where near close to satisfying "The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique." Theroadislong (talk) 15:26, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I had thought the author qualified for WP:AUTHOR because she had created a "well-known work, " that I attempted to support through citations from major news outlets like The Star, organizations like the American Library Association, and high readership websites such as Bustle.com Trying to do my best to make the article better and appreciate your input towards doing that. MarcusK0100 (talk) 15:35, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MarcusK0100: Mainstream journalism like CBC and the Toronto Star are definitely considered reliable. Some of the others, not so much. This might help you figure out what sources are viewed by the community as reliable (or not): Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:01, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Drm310:Thank you. I will definitely keep that in mind. I was using the less traditional reliable sources like bustle.com to support the claim that the work was "well-known," since they have over 50 million monthly readers. Some of the other sites (like the comically named bloodydisgusting.com) have traffic approaching those levels as well, so I figure a lot of people know about the book as a result of the book being featured on these types of high traffic websites.Hope that explains the rationale a little.MarcusK0100 (talk) 16:45, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MarcusK0100: aside from anything else, I'm afraid that the logical thread that 'X website is visited by lots of people' -> 'this book is mentioned on X website' -> 'therefore lots of people have heard of this book' -> 'therefore this book is well-known' doesn't quite cut it. Firstly because being featured on a popular website isn't the same thing as being 'well-known' by most standards and secondly because, making those logical leaps would constitute a form of original research. To establish that a book is well-known, we generally look at whether it has been the subject of serious, substantial reviews in reliable, independent sources. Hug^syrup 16:55, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]