Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alison Tyler

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 14:03, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alison Tyler

[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)

No significant coverage from reliable sources. The Guardian source is a blogpost that only mentions the subject in passing. Aŭstriano (talk) 03:09, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Literature, and United States of America. Aŭstriano (talk) 03:09, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sexuality and gender and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:20, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For those looking for sources, there appears to be another author with a pen name of Alison Tyler (Elise Title is her real name) who writes romance novels. Given the book titles and geography, I think these are different people. DaffodilOcean (talk) 13:54, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Her work has gotten reviews in Publishers Weekly [1] [2] [3] [4] and Library Journal [5] [6] [7] [8]. I'd want to see a little bit more in order to satisfy NAUTHOR, but some of her work seems to be notable. Will keep looking. MCE89 (talk) 14:48, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's a short one here from the Midwest Book Review. Romantic Times seems to have published 2 reviews, per this Broadway World article [9] and this press release from her publisher [10]. Best, Bridget (talk) 18:13, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not too substantial, but there is brief coverage of her work in local publications, like the San Francisco Chronicle [11][12], the East Bay Express (already cited in the article), and the Bay Area Reporter [13] (URL dead). Bridget (talk) 19:05, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 11:11, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MCE89@Bridget, you have both linked a bunch of sources but not !voted either way. @Aŭstriano@DaffodilOcean, it would be great if you could weigh in too. Toadspike [Talk] 11:12, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with MCE89. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 19:42, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am not sure if these short reviews are enough to establish notability. I would leave it up to more experienced editors. Aŭstriano (talk) 13:12, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see enough coverage here to warrant keeping this. DaffodilOcean (talk) 13:57, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm probably at a weak delete. I don't see quite enough in the sources that have been presented to meet NAUTHOR criteria 3 or GNG. MCE89 (talk) 14:04, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with the above - weak delete, given the critical reception found. Bridget (talk) 21:29, 2 June 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.