Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lysa TerKeurst

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. Daniel (talk) 00:45, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lysa TerKeurst

[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)

Vanity piece on an utterly non-notable 'Christian author'. Not supported by a single source that comes even close to RS or providing sigcov. Fails WP:GNG / WP:BIO. Has quite a dodgy history, too, so probably needs salting to stop it cropping up yet again. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 21:58, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 21:58, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 21:58, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 21:58, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 21:58, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 21:58, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as meets WP:AUTHOR #4 and GNG. New York Times #1 bestselling author with 3 starred reviews from Publishers Weekly. Likely more coverage behind paywalls and offline. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 23:06, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:BIO, and the NYT bestseller list is hardly an indication of notability. It's got a dozen subcategories, and any author with money to blow can put their book on top by buying copies themselves. That, and her book was #1 for ONE DAY. I could probably do better if I wanted to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumanuil (talk • contribs) 23:28, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:54, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, she's had at least *2* #1 New York Times bestsellers. One of those books was #1 for (not *in*, but for the months overall) both September and October of that year. Can you provide evidence for your theory that she bought enough copies to make it #1? Good luck with your Pattersonian endeavors! DiamondRemley39 (talk) 14:51, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She meets WP:NAUTHOR criteria #4. Pilean (talk) 07:11, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Quite prolific enough to keep. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:55, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as passes WP:NAUTHOR with best selling books that have been reviewed in multiple reliable sources so that criteria 3 and 4 are passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:42, 28 March 2021 (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.