Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dani Cavallaro


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 20:29, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Dani Cavallaro

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

I cannot find anything on this author in both print and online sources despite them writing 28 books. I cannot confirm even the most basic of biographical information (age, country, etc), nor even whether this is even a real person. What if this is simply a collection of authors who publish under this name? I cannot find a single newspaper article on this person, or any kind of faculty biography attached to any kind of institution. There is a short overview that lacks any biographical information on one of her publisher websites. I cannot confirm whether this person is an academic or has any kind of academic background.

Doing online searches, you find people spending years asking the exact same questions and not coming up with anything definitive:

https://www.animemangastudies.com/2014/03/19/who-is-dani-cavallaro-part-1/

https://www.animemangastudies.com/2014/03/21/who-is-dani-cavallaro-part-2/

In principle, her works could be used as sources for Wikipedia (not every author is notable enough to have their own page). There are a handful of academic reviews of her books but this is simply not enough. Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep as article creator. I understand the concerns you're raising in your nomination, but they seem to be primarily concerns about the subject herself, which is a separate discussion from whether the subject merits a Wikipedia article. If your argument is that Cavallaro does not qualify for assessment under the academic notability guideline, note that she also meets criteria 1 and 3 of the creative professionals guideline: her Google Scholar results indicate that her work is widely cited, some of them having hundreds of citations, her work has been the subject of https://www.jstor.org/action/doBasicSearch?Query=%22Dani+Cavallaro%22 in addition to the ones already present in the article, and physical copies of her works seem to be widespread, with https://search.worldcat.org/title/43751735 and https://search.worldcat.org/title/62430842 being available in hundreds of libraries. — TechnoSquirrel69 ( sigh ) 22:07, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * She fails literally every single criteria for the academic notability guideline (and rather badly I might add). She's made zero impact in her field, and merely spams out a lot of very low quality books that get trashed in reviews or cited in other low quality scholarship. She does not publish in any peer reviewed journal at all, and does not hold any position in any unviersity or academic setting, and does not go to any conferences (or even fan conventions). In the end, I can't even prove she's a real person and not 3 teenagers in a trench coat. The article will be permanent stub status simply because there's no sources and likely never will be. Harizotoh9 (talk) 22:59, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not certain whether the academic guideline applies in this case, but that's pretty irrelevant as I've already demonstrated how she passes the guideline for creative professionals. Again, none of the concerns you're raising here are relevant to the question of whether Cavallaro merits an article. A person does not need to have a public image or appear at events in order to be notable. Even if you think Cavallaro might be "3 teenagers in a trench coat", that isn't a reason to delete the article. Should William Shakespeare's article be deleted just because the authenticity of his work has been questioned for hundreds of years? Yes, that's a somewhat hyperbolic comparison, but quite to the point — I haven't seen that claim presented anywhere other than a single blog post, and I regard it as a fringe theory. — TechnoSquirrel69 ( sigh ) 23:44, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * There is actual proof Shakespeare existed beyond people saying he wrote some works at least. What is there to say about somebody with no known personal details or expertise? XeCyranium (talk) 00:03, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, bringing up the Shakespeare thing was probably unnecessary, but I believe the point stands. None of Wikipedia's notability guidelines require verification of any personal details. In most cases, what's important is that the subject receives significant coverage in reliable sources; authors get slightly more leeway with the consideration of their works and how widely cited they are. Cavallaro meets both of those thresholds. — TechnoSquirrel69 ( sigh ) 01:50, 5 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete : Plenty of books/papers written by her, nothing about her. I don't find much of anything outside of books she's written. No coverage, no critical reviews of her works, unsure about scholarly notability. Oaktree b (talk) 23:42, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Oaktree b: Did you click the links I provided in my comment above? — TechnoSquirrel69 ( sigh ) 23:45, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes I did. The site is listed as a RS, but we need more than two articles from the same site to establish notability here. Oaktree b (talk) 23:51, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm confused. I'm not referring to the nomination but to my comment, where I showed her work has been widely cited and reviewed. Also, I will note that Anime and Manga Studies is likely not reliable as a whole, being a self-published source; the WikiProject only recommends a single page of references as a starting point for further research. — TechnoSquirrel69 ( sigh ) 23:56, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Visual arts, Anime and manga,  and England.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  02:06, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep The Jstor link provided above shows ample reviews of her written works, easily passing AUTHOR notability. Oaktree b (talk) 13:43, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Commment: Since the author's reliability has come up here, notifying of a Reliable sources/Noticeboard discussion about this author. The discussion can be found here: . Thanks, Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 17:55, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep: Reliability aside, her works have been reviewed enough for notability as an author. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:05, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep per the provided Jstor link. Also if scholors are criticizing her then there is that as well. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:10, 7 June 2024 (UTC)


 * 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.