Talk:Kat Rosenfield

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

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

Women

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women 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.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles

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.

Women in Red

This article was created or improved as part of the Women in Red project. The editor(s) involved may be new; please assume good faith regarding their contributions before making changes.Women in RedWikipedia:WikiProject Women in RedTemplate:WikiProject Women in RedWomen in Red articles

Connecticut Low‑importance

	Connecticut portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Connecticut, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Connecticut 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.ConnecticutWikipedia:WikiProject ConnecticutTemplate:WikiProject ConnecticutConnecticut articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Notability

@Thriley: I don't think we have a stand-alone notability requirement for authors or at least I cant find one at Category:Wikipedia notability guidelines. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:30, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NAUTHOR redirects to a section on "Creative professionals", which says it is for Authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, and other creative professionals, so I guess that is the relevant additional occupation-specific criteria? Don't know whether she meets it though. If No One Will Miss Her wins the Edgar Allen Poe Award I guess that would satisfy won significant critical attention. Endwise (talk) 16:40, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If she wins the award I agree that would put her over the line notability wise. As it currently stands I'm not seeing notability either. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:46, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Thriley: You understand that for notability you will need to find coverage of the author not just the books, right? We need at least two other articles like the Variety piece (currently the only in-depth source). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:08, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think establishing that she has gotten coverage for each one of her books over the course of a decade demonstrates her notability. Thriley (talk) 17:14, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That would not demonstrate notability. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:40, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did you see this Wired article? It talks about her work with Stan Lee and her previous work.[1] Thriley (talk) 18:51, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Still need one more. You've done a great job so far BTW, but you need to do the work *before* removing the tag not after. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:52, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NAUTHOR #3 applies, 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 primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. In addition to the reviews in the article already, some of which aren't great, here's some more: full review, blurb, full review, not sure on source, full review, full review, and another full review. There are plenty more out there, so it looks to me like a clear pass of NAUTHOR #3. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:23, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish: what is the significant or well-known work or collective body of work she has produced? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:52, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Her books, which have been the primary subject of ... multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:55, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe what we mean by "a work or collective body of work" would be a book series or a series of sculptures (if its not then we should change the wording)... Not just everything the creative has ever done. None of the individual books seem to reach our bar for significant or well-known work. I will however note that part of that may be because we are dealing with a sexist industry which tends to consider the work produced by women as less significant. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:03, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no expert, but in every author related AfD I've taken part in, the body of work is their full body of work. The individual works may not be notable, but an author that gets reviewed in a pile of RS passes the bar, in my experience. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:05, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thats interesting, if the bar is where you say it is thats extremely low and very interesting to know, I can think of a half dozen authors I didn't think merited a page that would certainly squeak by under that definition. Might be a busy weekend if I can do some digging and confirm! Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:13, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There’s thousands and thousands of authors that qualify! I made one for cookbook author Tracey Medeiros last week. Generally if they’ve published two or more books that got coverage in legitimate reviews, they should qualify. Thriley (talk) 20:20, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Medeiros passes WP:GNG multiple times over so I'm not so sure thats a good example but your point is taken. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:48, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, I'm no expert, but I have 183 AfDs under my belt, with an 83% match rate, so I do have some experience. I normally see them play out where if they have several reviews in decent RS, they're considered notable. That's the criteria I used when I decided Darcie Dennigan was worth an article. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:22, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting, thank you. I will keep the low bar in mind going forward. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:48, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I try not to think of it as a low bar, as much as a balance to having an article on every K-Pop band, song, album and tour, and every Indian television show. Have a little old-style culture and media represented is good. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:50, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have bones to pick with the pop culture crowd over absurdly low bars (See User talk:Horse Eye's Back#WP:TVPLOT, WP:FILMPLOT, et al. for an example) but I genuinely believe that two works with two reviews each is a very low bar. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:54, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I normally aim higher than that, and if I saw that at an AFD they'd have to be some pretty big name sources. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:58, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

With only a few sources, I’d say only NY Review of Books level reviews would do. Thriley (talk) 21:10, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A body of work is one’s whole career output, see Wiktionary:body of work. Thriley (talk) 20:08, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Most sources also say "or a substantial part" [2] as when output is divided between discrete periods or projects. Also note that we don't appear to have any reviews of this author's body of work as such, as far as I can tell we only have reviews for individual works. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:15, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]