Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julia Flynn Siler

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 keep. The consensus is to keep the article, following Coolabahapple's research. I note the comment from the original author, however as the article's main issues have been resolved, I see that the consensus remains to keep. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 17:01, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Julia Flynn Siler (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)

A paid for article which fails to demonstrate the authors notability, I can find no mention of her in the New York Times Best seller lists, and being a finalist for two awards is not sufficient to pass WP:GNG Theroadislong (talk) 18:47, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:58, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:58, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Being a paid article isn't a reason to delete it, however the lack of significant coverage is. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOUR. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:00, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete per G7 As the author has asked for the deletion of their articel on their talk page here: [1] RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:53, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is not her article, many other editors have contributed too, better to let the afd run it's course. Theroadislong (talk) 20:00, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:56, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, a quick gsearch for reviews of the two books in the article brings up plenty of reviews ie. from nytimes washington post latimes library journal and more, so probably meets WP:NAUTHOR, did nom and deleters do any WP:BEFORE? Coolabahapple (talk) 18:10, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

and house of mondavi received a gold Axiom Book award - [2]. Coolabahapple (talk) 18:18, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not remotely clear how she meets WP:NAUTHOR and the Axiom Book award is barely notable judging by it's article, but happy to be persuaded. Theroadislong (talk) 18:30, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NAUTHOR - "3.The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Both her books are "well-known" here are some reviews on The House of Mondavi: [3], Wine Spectator - "The book's author, Julia Flynn Siler, a writer for the Wall Street Journal, tackles this complicated story from a business perspective. Certainly she has done her homework. The book is well-researched, with more than 250 interviews, including all of the important players, with an honest effort to represent the many different perspectives. It's fluid and well-written, with insight and rare details that weave together the family's frayed relationships and poor business decisions."; [4], Vinography - "Siler took a long leave of absence to work on this book, and her research is simply outstanding. She captures the scope of Mondavi's story, which amounts to King Lear in wine country."; [5], SF Gate(San Francisco Chronicle) - "SOUR GRAPES / Napa Valley abuzz over tell-all book about how Mondavi family lost empire"; [6], The New York Times - "The sweeping story of the Mondavis’ ascent has been told many times, but never in as clear and detailed a fashion as in a compelling new book, “The House of Mondavi: The Rise and Fall of an American Wine Dynasty” (Gotham Books, $28), by Julia Flynn Siler, who writes for The Wall Street Journal from northern California.".

Reviews on Lost Kingdom: [7], New York Times - "The flip side of that story — how it all looked to the native Hawaiians — is much darker. Julia Flynn Siler’s new book, “Lost Kingdom: Hawaii’s Last Queen, the Sugar Kings, and America’s First Imperial Adventure,” recounts that tale using more than 275 sources, including contemporaneous Hawaiian newspapers and the letters and diaries of Lili’uokalani, the last Hawaiian monarch. ... From the outset, Siler faces certain credibility issues: she is nonnative and nonlocal. She is also working with a language — Hawaiian — that is highly nuanced, often making accurate translations difficult to come by. Yet her book is richly and diversely sourced, and she’s able to color in many figures who had heretofore existed largely in outline or black and white. ... “Lost Kingdom” is not as gripping as it could have been, given the palace intrigue and double dealing it describes. But it is a solidly researched account of an important chapter in our national history, one that most Americans don’t know but should. It will probably provoke missionary descendants and native Hawaiians alike, which is praise in itself."; [8], Washington Post - "In Julia Flynn Siler’s new book, “Lost Kingdom,” we get a close look at how foreigners from Germany, Britain and the United States jockeyed for influence and schemed to take over the government during Hawaii’s last few decades of independence. Siler’s experience as a reporter for the Wall Street Journal serves her well as she depicts the figures who brought down the islands’ monarchy."; [9], LA Times - "Queen Lili'uokalani is the focus but not the sole subject of "Lost Kingdom," journalist Julia Flynn Siler's well-researched, nicely contextualized history of events leading to the U.S. annexation of Hawaii in 1898. ... Siler is balanced, if hardly impartial, in chronicling the tense two years leading to that moment and the subsequent maneuvering that ended with annexation in 1898. She dispassionately records the belief of members of Thurston's Annexation Club "that Hawai'i's tumultuous politics hurt business … annexation would lead to stability and prosperity.""; [10], Publishers Weekly - "Wall Street Journal contributing writer Siler (The House of Mondavi: The Rise and Fall of an American Wine Dynasty) skillfully weaves the tangled threads of this story into a satisfying tapestry about the late 19th-century death of a small nation at the hands of United States imperialists and businessmen ... Siler’s history would have benefited from an interpretive thread, but it makes up in sympathetic detail what it lacks in stimulating ideas."; [11], SF Gate(San Francisco Chronicle) - "This imperious slice of American history hasn't exactly been hiding under a rock for the past 125 years, but Siler, a Wall Street Journal reporter based in San Francisco, retells it with agitating freshness. ... Though Siler will coax out a cultural, personal or geopolitical context for most every event that comes onstage, it is with the greater setting, the diorama, where she excels. Throughout the story, Siler, the author of "The House of Mondavi" (2008), fashions a sense of intimacy in mood and atmosphere." (As more than two reviews for each book i suppose we should also have separate articles for each of them?)ps. these took a 15min gsearch to find, entering them here took a lot longer:))Coolabahapple (talk) 18:01, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Per Coolabahapple: multiple works, each with multiple substantive reviews from major media (including The New York Times), means the author is notable. I note the creator's deletion request, mentioned above, but I also note that no reasons were given, and I hold hope that the development of a neutrally worded article will answer whatever concerns led to the request. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:06, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:GNG; consistent significant coverage through feature-length articles in multiple major independent news outlets (as demonstrated by a Google Search and Coolabahapple's thorough citations above). —Nizolan ^(talk) 22:03, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per Coolabahapple. Yash! 18:44, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I would like to thank everyone for their comments and time here. I have no idea if I am commenting the right way here, so I apologize if I am messing anyone up.. I would like to request that this article either be deleted, or for help in editing it as it has been butchered, and flagged to high-heaven by one, very zealous user. I am very new to this process--is there a way to move things more quickly? Thank you!! MelissBelle (talk) 03:45, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I resolved or removed (with explanation in my summaries) all the outstanding tags and citation requests. However, please remember that, even for articles you started, there's no deadline.  Rebbing  04:15, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi MelissBelle. AfDs such as this are generally allowed to run 7 days (168 hours) to give enough people a chance to comment. Eventually an administrator will come by and read all that is written and determine if a consensus has been reached. Please understand that the result will not determined by a simple vote count because it is the quality, not the quantity of the arguments that matters. If the reviewing administrator feels that more time for discussion is needed, then they may decide to relist the discussion. If the administrator feels that no consensus will ever be achieved no matter how long this is discussed, then they may decide no consensus. As for there being no deadlines, there is no time limit placed upon improving the article so you can keep doing that even while this discussion is ongoing, In fact, any addition sources you are able to find may even help those discussing the article here to reach a consensus. Finally, please try and remember that these discussion are not intended to be taken personally. The purpose of AfD is to simply decide whether an article belongs on Wikipedia. Discussions do sometimes get a little heated because the answer to that question is not always so clear. However, comments such as as it has been butchered, and flagged to high-heaven by one, very zealous user are |not really conducive to the discussion process, so it's best to try and refrain from making personal comments (even indirect ones) about other editors and keep focused on the matter being discussed. The reality is that articles can be edited by anyone in the world with Internet access which means they may morph it to something different over time. So, it's best to assume good faith unless it's an obvious case of vandalism as defined by Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:10, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as the research put together by Coolabahapple appears to demonstrate that the subject meets NAUTHOR point 4(c).  Rebbing  04:19, 22 April 2016 (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.