Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Janna Nickerson


 * 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. Fails WP:AUTHOR. WP:GNG does not apply. We have stricter guidelines for biographies, particularly those of living individuals. لenna vecia  05:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Janna Nickerson

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable writer. KuroiShiroi (contribs) 02:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Self-published author. Hairhorn (talk) 04:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Though this author may be barely notable, she passes WP:BIO. Being self-published is not a valid reason for deletion if sources are available. According to this Google News Archive search, several sources exist that establish this writer's notability. Here is an article from KCBY and two articles from Grand Forks Herald. A possible argument for deletion could be "only has local notability" but I disagree with that. I agree with, who said in another AfD debate that ""Only local importance" doesn't wash as a deletion reason; many if not most of our articles (in some cases like transportation and geography, close to 100%) are on topics of only local importance." Cunard (talk) 06:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I also found this article from The World Link and this article from the Ravalli Republic. Notability is fully established by the substantial coverage from four reliable news organizations. Cunard (talk) 07:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Self-published author, and all seven of those sources--four from the same local newspaper--only establish her existence, really, not any real notability. The transport and geographical articles, being about fixed items, are inherently local for the most part; a writer or creative person's notability should not be, and this particular subject appears to be barely known even within her home-town. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 09:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The keep argument above contains sources from a publication from North Dakota/Minnesota while the kid is from Oregon. "Only local notability" is a clearly invalid reason whether you agree with the underlying idea of such a concept or not. - Mgm|(talk) 10:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete authors of self published books need exceptionally strong evidence, as almost none of them are even remotely notable. I don;'t know why a local newspaper in Oregon chose to cover it when she was making a tour of local middle school libraries to promote the book,  but it doesn't matter.   such RSs do not show  notability for such a book. Serious substantial coverage from  national sources is necessary. The name of the book publisher  is interesting: Hidden Talent Press.    When the talent is widely recognized, there can be an article. This is the sort of human interest story to which BLP applies; it is not encyclopedic. DGG (talk) 02:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Cunard. The requirement is to pass either GNG or additional. While she doesn't meet the latter, she does have enough coverage to pass general in the cited references. She's even been covered in multiple areas, which invalidates the local interest only complaint, even if that were a valid procedural reason for deletion. Not claiming she's spectacularly notable or accomplished, but she does meet the bare minimum standard of notability.Horrorshowj (talk) 05:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Generally speaking if an author is notable then they don't need vanity/self publishing. May be for the first book, but for an author to have a series of books all self-published then that points to their lack of notability. -- Web H amster  01:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Being self-published doesn't mean that she is non-notable. You are disregarding the ample sources that attest to her notability. Cunard (talk) 04:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nja 247 06:22, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Weak delete coverage of her is too local to satisy the notability criteria. Being self-published doesn't mean one is inherintly non-notable, Nietzsche for example published some of his books himself.  One has to meet WP:N or WP:BIO independantly of the self-published works and this subject's notability isn't widespread enough for WP:N.  Them  From  Space  11:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep per cunard. It doesn't matter if an author is self-published, but instead whether they meet the criteria which this author apparently does.Smallman12q (talk) 13:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Not according to WP:CREATIVE she doesn't. -- Web H amster  13:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, she fails WP:CREATIVE, but that doesn't mean her article should be deleted if she passes WP:GNG. The sources provided above show that GNG is easily met. Cunard (talk) 22:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. There's minor local coverage, but the books are not well-known, she's not a published author. She's not got enough recognition yet to pass the threshold. Fences and windows (talk) 22:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The coverage is not "local". See Mgm's keep vote. Cunard (talk) 22:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. The local coverage just isn't enough to cut it for an author with less than 5,000 copies of their books sold.  She might be borderline, but I really don't feel she quite makes it to the criteria listed as she's entirely self-published.Tyrenon (talk) 23:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The coverage is not "local". See Mgm's keep vote. Cunard (talk) 22:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete: while it's impressive that a young woman from Montana went on a multi-state book tour which got coverage in Oregon, I don't see that these articles establish her notability as a writer. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 01:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Insufficient coverage to establish notability. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 02:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Only minor local coverage - not enough to establish notability Hipocrite (talk) 13:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)repli
 * The coverage is not just local. See Mgm's comment above that some of the sources are from publications in "North Dakota/Minnesota while the kid is from Oregon". Cunard (talk) 22:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep She meets the requirements for a biography. She has mentions in newspapers, mostly about her young age.   D r e a m Focus  13:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak keep She may be a writer but she she isn't a publicist. She went on a thirteen state tour and this is all the publicity she has? And she only sold 4000 books? I suggest a stay of execution but if we don't see a marked improvement showing more and varied sourcing and some noatbility this article will likely be back at AfD. -- Banj e  b oi   17:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per our N and BIO standards for authors. Eusebeus (talk) 17:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree she fails WP:AUTHOR, but the article should be kept because the sources show that she passes WP:GNG. Cunard (talk) 22:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete since it doesn't even appear that her self-published books pass our notability standards, but she definitely fails our BLP standards since there are insufficient reliable sources that treat this subject -- her life, her loves, her losses! -- in any depth at all. Generally, sources are needed for BLPs.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The information provided in the sources are enough to make the article look the way it is now. This article isn't a stub; it's a decent start-class article. Cunard (talk) 22:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep There appear to be sufficient sources. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you name 2? How bout 1? I find O.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * All of the sources in my keep comment above are reliable sources. I count 5 sufficient sources. Cunard (talk) 22:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete, sales don't show notability. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 03:42, 30 May 2009 (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.