Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jay Baron Nicorvo


 * 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. Very rough, but there seems to be an agreement that the subject is notable, whether or not they meet WP:AUTHOR. ansh 666 05:18, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Jay Baron Nicorvo

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The article was created by a now blocked user who has some COI. the subject is author but apparently fails WP:AUTHORS. The cited references does not discuss the subject in depth but his non-notable work such as books. Some ref are self published so not independent. I am also unable to find significant coverage about the subject in independent RS thus nominating this for community to decide. Saqib (talk) 07:48, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 11:31, 5 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep 2 newspaper profiles; first novel that has attracted attention. I expanded, sourced the article a little.  I think he scrapes past the bar at WP:AUTHOR.  I do see that he probably created his own page, enormous numbers of actors, writers, wanna-be self-help gurus, etc. do that.  And, if they pass the bar, we keep the articles.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:28, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Please provide here those two 2 newspaper profiles. Would be easier to me and others to make assessment. --Saqib (talk) 06:29, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The Gazette (Cedar Rapids),Fighting the pull of poetry, this poet finds his muse in the military's role in his life in latest novel; The Capital Times, Thisbe Nissen and Jay Baron Nicorvo love being married to a writer (each other).E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:22, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay so the former one is an Q/A type interview which is considered primary source and material contained in such Q&A type interviews are not acceptable to cite claims on WP therefore it fails to meet GNG. Latter one is clearly not WP:SIGCOV. The story discuss the work of the subject not himself. Also point to noted is that the standard set for sources to establish the WP:N is higher in AfD as compare to support claims within an article so I would say unless we get some solid sources that meet the criteria for establishing notability, we won't be able establish the WP:N. --Saqib (talk) 10:41, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You seem ot misunder our standards. Assertions made by an interviewee in a RS are WP reliable when cited to the interviewee (According to Nicorvo...).   Interviews and feature stories in reliable, secondary sources not only count towards notability, they constitute it. Here, two of the interviews (WMUK and The Capital Times) are local and therefore count less; The Gazette (Cedar Rapids) is not local to him.  Moreover, there is no requirement that we can source a bio for an individuals under WP:CREATIVE, if the work is notable, the creator is notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:19, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * According to Nicorvo.. what is that? As per WP:IV, full stop. I agree feature stories and profiles in independent RS are acceptable but these Q&A type interviews are not therefore one should not be using them to establish the WP:N. I'm not satisfied with the quality of sources provided here to establish the WP:N. And I agree if the work is notable, the author is notable but in this case, none of the subject's work (novel,book) is notable at least by WP standards. I'm afraid you are unable to provide here some solid coverage about the subject. --Saqib (talk) 14:50, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * My iVote is based on WP:AUTHOR and the reception of his first novel, and the some press attention as a poet. In addito to the two interviews discussed above, there is  a review and an interview that ran on WMUK, a review in Booklist, a capsule review in Library Journal, two inclusions in book-of-the-year list and some other stuff.  As I said, to me, it seems to scrape by, but let's see what other editors think.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:33, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I am skeptical if audio or video interviews are even placed in AfD's to establish the WP:N? I am willing to hear what others have to say about my nomination. --Saqib (talk) 18:06, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Audio and video in WP:RS media like the public radio station WMUK are treated in the same manner as other reliable media.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:43, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree but I said I am not sure if audio or video interviews are even placed in AfD's to establish the WP:N.. --Saqib (talk) 14:10, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:28, 14 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep WP:NAUTHOR isn't met, but WP:GNG probably is. This isn't a BLP1E case now, but if the author is never heard from again, it might be considered one in the future.  power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 02:19, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * could you please explain why do you think the subject meet GNG? GNG means "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail". --Saqib (talk) 07:32, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, the standard set for sources to support claims within an article is a lower standard than that for sources to establish WP:N. And I don't think the cited and provided sources meet the criteria for establishing notability. --Saqib (talk) 15:00, 16 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep, the ref from the gazette looks ok, there are other bits and pieces, I'm ok with audio/video being used as refs as long as it isn't user generated like youtube. Szzuk (talk) 18:07, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * OK I found an article on the novel The Standard Grand has been created just recently. The subject has received most of the coverage due to this novel so Wouldn't it be better idea to Redirect this BLP into the novel article ? what are you thoughts? --Saqib (talk) 06:22, 22 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I almost always prefer to merge the book to the author's article when both are of marginal notability. As far as GNG, the various newspaper coverage (not entirely about either his book or his wife) is enough for me, though only barely; it's possible to interpret enough of it as trivial such that the person does not meet GNG. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 06:26, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree, it is marginal but we may as well just leave it be. Szzuk (talk) 07:34, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Concur with User:power~enwiki that it makes sense to write up this book on author's page. E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:50, 22 April 2018 (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.