Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennifer Lyons (literary agent)


 * 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. Jayjg (talk) 02:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Jennifer Lyons (literary agent)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Article is an autobiography of a non-notable person. Any notability is by association only. No significant coverage to be found in Google web or news searches. Reference provided verify facts about other people, not about Lyons herself. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete NN Hipocrite (talk) 21:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete The claims to notability all revolve around other people. She does not appear to be notable in her own right.   GB fan  talk 22:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment since I'm conflicted. Notability shouldn't be inherited, but aren't agents typically judged by their clients? (However, this may be a moot point if no reliable sources discuss her -- in which case, the Nobel Prize-winning clients don't mean much). B figura  (talk) 03:13, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This is never about merit really, and I'm not even sure noble prize winners are inherently "good", being noted for mediocrity or being noted for being the most obscure agent would meet notability guidelines. See comments on talk apge. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 15:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Claims of notability through her clients do not make her notable, and claims are vague at best anyways. Beach drifter (talk) 18:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment As I mentioned on the "Talk" page, I have looked at several other entries for agents and agencies that have been accepted for inclusion (i.e., Christopher Little, Barbara Bauer, United Agents, Abrams Artists Agency, Eulama, Conville and Walsh, Wendy Keller, Terry W. Burns, etc.), and am not sure how these entries differ fundamentally from ours. In addition, there are several talent agencies of various specialties that are each allowed an entry. If someone could provide more concrete editorial advise so that Ms. Lyons may too join this community of agents and representatives with a Wikipedia presence, it would be greatly appreciated. I respect this site very much and never intended for things to become so involved. (FYI: I am the sole user of this Login representing Ms. Lyons.) Thank you for your time, patience, and assistance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JeLyons (talk • contribs)
 * Please refer to WP:OTHERSTUFF. The presence of other bad articles on Wikipedia is not a reason to keep this particular bad article.  Also, several of the articles mentioned by JeLyons are actually quite a bit better, as significant third party coverage exists for those agents, which cannot be said for Ms. Lyons.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Please also see my response on talk page. You need to distinguish an encyclopedia from an advertising medium. Clearly the hope is to make information more accessible to others but the idea is to only parrot what others have found notable and of something approaching archival value. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 11:47, 4 November 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.