The result was delete. slakr\ talk / 10:10, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
PROD contested by article's creator. The article has zero third-party independent sources that show any notability whatsoever; the article fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO and WP:AUTHOR. While the article does have plenty of press releases, blogs, primary sources and Amazon and other book sale links, none of those contribute towards notability. Aoidh ( talk) 23:27, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
DELETE There seems to be too many pieces like this on wiki, if something or someone is truly notable, there are sources.-- Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 23:40, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
KEEP Aximilli Isthill ( talk) 00:27, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Aximilli Isthill ( talk) 00:46, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Delete does not appear to meet WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG. Boleyn ( talk) 07:33, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Delete. WP:AUTHOR #3 suggests that a creative professional who is the subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews could be considered notable enough for a Wikipedia encyclopedia entry, but I'm not finding that. The article currently has a blurb about being "featured in the South Africa Herald" but the reference is a dead link and when I try to find that article by other means, it appears to be behind a paywall. It appears to be an author interview conducted for one of her books. If it is actually an independent article, then a few more of these could be enough to meet notability. One of them isn't enough however. As a note to the article author, it's worth noting that this deletion discussion has nothing to do with the personal character of the article subject, or whether or not her books are any good, it's only about whether this author is notable enough today to have an encyclopedia entry about her. As she progresses in her career, she may well cross that threshold. Neil916 ( Talk) 17:59, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Delete There just is not enough reliable sources at this time discussing Ms. Mangano to establish she is a notable author per WP:AUTHOR or AP: GNG. The fact her work has won three awards does not make her notable. -- danntm T C 04:43, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Weak keep There are a couple things I'd like to point out. First of all since I'm not American, I don't watch much US TV (even the satellites are below the horizon), don't listen to US radio (which work completely differently than their European counterparts) and check up on US news material sporadically only. Thus I can comment only on technicalities (and other, semi-related matters), not on notability itself.
First of all Aoidh it's obvious that you want to have that article deleted. Personal reasons or not, the fact that you added the "orphan" tag (among others) and then systematically thwarted/sabotaged all attempts at linking other articles to this one (by hastily deleting all the inbound links in the other articles) hints that you quite obviously have a chip on your shoulder. Since you're also eager to point out Wikipedia rules to an obvious lurker (more on this in a bit), let me point out one to you too:
WP:DONTBITE
Notwithstanding all the hard times all of you have given to Aximilli Isthill, it's kinda obvious to me that he's still mostly a lurker. I mean not only his citations leave a lot to be desired, but even his internal article linking is wonky to say the least (uses full Wikipedia URLs instead of the [[]] tag). I also have a feeling that he isn't too familiar with the academic criteria for references and academics-style citing either. This is partly obvious from his edits and his comments above too, which could explain why did he post so many dubious (or even outright useless) references. So how about taking this into consideration when giving him the benefit of the doubt?
Tomwsulcer has also mentioned that his news sweep didn't turn up anything. Whilst I don't think that a person's notability can only be established by tabloids (I mean seriously? Only junk celebrities are notable?!), there are sources which still haven't been crawled by search engines and generally might not appear online. E.g. the latest source additions seem to include some useful sources too. In general I think that besides the effort Aximilli Isthill put into creating the article, he also went that extra mile collecting additional sources only because of the hard time Aoidh has given him AND this AfD request too. And since he's obviously already going out of his way to improve the article, I'm sure future improvements can be expected too. That's why the keep. --
CoolKoon (
talk) 23:19, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
The result was delete. slakr\ talk / 10:10, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
PROD contested by article's creator. The article has zero third-party independent sources that show any notability whatsoever; the article fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO and WP:AUTHOR. While the article does have plenty of press releases, blogs, primary sources and Amazon and other book sale links, none of those contribute towards notability. Aoidh ( talk) 23:27, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
DELETE There seems to be too many pieces like this on wiki, if something or someone is truly notable, there are sources.-- Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 23:40, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
KEEP Aximilli Isthill ( talk) 00:27, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Aximilli Isthill ( talk) 00:46, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Delete does not appear to meet WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG. Boleyn ( talk) 07:33, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Delete. WP:AUTHOR #3 suggests that a creative professional who is the subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews could be considered notable enough for a Wikipedia encyclopedia entry, but I'm not finding that. The article currently has a blurb about being "featured in the South Africa Herald" but the reference is a dead link and when I try to find that article by other means, it appears to be behind a paywall. It appears to be an author interview conducted for one of her books. If it is actually an independent article, then a few more of these could be enough to meet notability. One of them isn't enough however. As a note to the article author, it's worth noting that this deletion discussion has nothing to do with the personal character of the article subject, or whether or not her books are any good, it's only about whether this author is notable enough today to have an encyclopedia entry about her. As she progresses in her career, she may well cross that threshold. Neil916 ( Talk) 17:59, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Delete There just is not enough reliable sources at this time discussing Ms. Mangano to establish she is a notable author per WP:AUTHOR or AP: GNG. The fact her work has won three awards does not make her notable. -- danntm T C 04:43, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Weak keep There are a couple things I'd like to point out. First of all since I'm not American, I don't watch much US TV (even the satellites are below the horizon), don't listen to US radio (which work completely differently than their European counterparts) and check up on US news material sporadically only. Thus I can comment only on technicalities (and other, semi-related matters), not on notability itself.
First of all Aoidh it's obvious that you want to have that article deleted. Personal reasons or not, the fact that you added the "orphan" tag (among others) and then systematically thwarted/sabotaged all attempts at linking other articles to this one (by hastily deleting all the inbound links in the other articles) hints that you quite obviously have a chip on your shoulder. Since you're also eager to point out Wikipedia rules to an obvious lurker (more on this in a bit), let me point out one to you too:
WP:DONTBITE
Notwithstanding all the hard times all of you have given to Aximilli Isthill, it's kinda obvious to me that he's still mostly a lurker. I mean not only his citations leave a lot to be desired, but even his internal article linking is wonky to say the least (uses full Wikipedia URLs instead of the [[]] tag). I also have a feeling that he isn't too familiar with the academic criteria for references and academics-style citing either. This is partly obvious from his edits and his comments above too, which could explain why did he post so many dubious (or even outright useless) references. So how about taking this into consideration when giving him the benefit of the doubt?
Tomwsulcer has also mentioned that his news sweep didn't turn up anything. Whilst I don't think that a person's notability can only be established by tabloids (I mean seriously? Only junk celebrities are notable?!), there are sources which still haven't been crawled by search engines and generally might not appear online. E.g. the latest source additions seem to include some useful sources too. In general I think that besides the effort Aximilli Isthill put into creating the article, he also went that extra mile collecting additional sources only because of the hard time Aoidh has given him AND this AfD request too. And since he's obviously already going out of his way to improve the article, I'm sure future improvements can be expected too. That's why the keep. --
CoolKoon (
talk) 23:19, 14 September 2014 (UTC)