Talk:Alison Waley

	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.

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

New Zealand Low‑importance

	New Zealand portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics 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.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Longevity

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Longevity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the World's oldest people 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.LongevityWikipedia:WikiProject LongevityTemplate:WikiProject LongevityLongevity articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

Monica Hesse (17 February 2019). "History has a massive gender bias. We'll settle for fixing Wikipedia". The Washington Post. Retrieved 17 February 2019.

Thanks

Thanks Megalibrarygirl, Jarekt for improving the article. It gives much better notability for Alison Waley now. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:25, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Any time, AngusWOOF! I'm just a ping away if you need me in the future. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:34, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Megalibrarygirl, umm..... does she really seem to be independently notable? How'bout creating A Half of Two Lives: A Personal Memoir and invoke WP:NOPAGE?

Mentions in footnotes of books, 3 reviews of the same book (not too glowing, either) and over-usage of a single obituary does not give confidence. ∯WBG^converse 16:49, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Winged Blades of Godric: I added sources to the article and I stand by them. You don't get a very large obit in the Times if you aren't important. She's got multiple reviews and not just for her memoir. Also, why are you contacting me about this? I added the references. I did not move the article out of draft space. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:23, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This's sufficiently well-written to merit a main-spacing. And, given that, I don't see the point of contacting anyone else. ∯WBG^converse 17:33, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Winged Blades of Godric: then why did you contact me? Megalibrarygirl (talk) 02:07, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What? Why shall I contact someone else? It was a good mainspace-move, so Jarekt can't be much faulted and that was the emphasis of my last reply. And, don't you agree that you are one of the major contributors of the article (and the most experienced of the lot to have edited this)? Or do you believe that article contributors shall not be contacted in this manner? ∯WBG^converse 05:23, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Winged Blades of Godric: I already said I stand by what I added. And if you believe that Jarekt was right in moving the article, I find your comments above to *only me* strange. Either it was right to move into Mainspace (where the criteria in AfC is that an article will not be likely to be deleted) or it doesn't. In addition, AngusWOOF has been editing Wikipedia as long as I have and was very involved in this. I just wondered why you only contacted ME. It felt rather pointed and strange. I accept your explanation in that you felt that I was the major contributor. However, I feel that I was part of a team here and I'm glad I had the chance to work on an interesting article. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 14:29, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what is the controversy. Alison was (in my mind) clearly notable person: a published author still relevant a while after her prime, with plenty independent authority control records (see[1] or wikidata identifiers), mentioned by numerous sources. Early draft was rallying heavily on sources like geni.com, but we managed to find alternative sources. Early draft was also disproportionately focusing on a single work by the author, but we managed to fill in other aspects of her life. I am grateful to Megalibrarygirl for helping with some of the sources and the expansion. As with most articles, it can be improved and more sources can be tracked down, but I thought it was in much better shape than most other stubs I have seen. So what is the issue being debated? And what is Megalibrarygirl "faulted" for? Jarekt (talk) 20:15, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Where was I faulting MLG for damn anything? I was asking about whether the part. book is the sole case of her notability and thus, whether she might be covered at a to-be article about the book. She disagrees which is perfectly fine.

FWIW, Wikidata identifiers or other authority control records are not tangentially relevant for notability. And neither are all published authors auto-notable. ∯WBG^converse 08:46, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Winged Blades of Godric: it made no sense to address the question to only me as if I was the arbiter of the entire article. That's my point. I wanted to understand why you singled me out. It felt strange and made no sense to me. When you want to gain consensus to move the article to another topic as you suggested, you really ought to include everyone involved in the creation of the article. Do you understand? And as to Jarekt's point about authority identifiers, they are indicators of likely notability and also avenues for looking for other leads for information (reviews of other works, etc). We all know they don't confer automatic notability. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:51, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Megalibrarygirl, don't be patronizing and it's quite commonplace to ask a single editor (who has been involved in any article) for a second opinion about whether to float any broader proposal at all (and then waste others' time). If you had somewhat agreed or were borderline about the standalone notability of the subject; I would have progressed to some AfD or a merge disc. or the like. Now, I won't. ∯WBG^converse 15:56, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I won't engage with you any further. Feel free to have the last word. ∯WBG^converse 15:58, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry you won't engage any further, Winged Blades of Godric. I wasn't patronizing you; it really seemed like you weren't understanding. If you had clearly stated your intent in the beginning, as you finally did here before leaving the discussion, this whole situation may have been avoided. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:52, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]