Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joanna Clapps Herman


 * 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:24, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Joanna Clapps Herman

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Was dePRODed by creator. Concern was: ''Has references, but mostly a list of publications and a faculty listing that do not assert notability. Fails to meet criteria at WP:CREATIVE for biographies and WP:ACADEMIC for faculty staff.''I still  feel  that  the references supplied are either to  the subject's own works, routine listings, and various appearances at  conferences. I do not  see, in  so far as the quality  of the sources, how the subject  meets either WP:BLP, WP:CREATIVE, or WP:ACADEMIC, so  I'm  letting  the community  decide here. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:16, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Keep: this article seems thorough, and I think it meets Wikipedia's WP:CREATIVESquareanimal (talk) 10:10, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment At the moment I'm not seeing much evidence of her meeting WP:CREATIVE. There are reviews of books she edited, but none of books she wrote.  All the prizes she's won seem minor, not the sort that receive press/media coverage. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:20, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Correction: the only reviews I put up there IS the book she's written (not edited). The Anarchist Bastard is her memoir. I'm still working on putting up more references and awards. This is my first real Wiki article, so I'd appreciate any advice on how to avoid deletion. She's very well known in the Italian American community of writers. Let me know what I can do. Thanks so much! Srdemuro (talk) 11:15, 26 June 2012 (UTC) Samantha
 * Unfortunately, being well known does not count towards Wikipedia's criteria for notability. The kind of WP:Reliable sources that are required are articles about her in the established press. Notability is not inherited by  books she has written - anyone can write a book. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:44, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

That makes sense. Should I find more references of people writing or talking about her? I think a lot of the references do that but I listed them as her name instead of the author of the articles -- will this make a difference? Srdemuro (talk) 16:32, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 17:47, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 17:47, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 17:47, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 17:57, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Article is mostly WP:OR puff centering around what appears to be her first and only book: The anarchist bastard : growing up Italian in America, which WorldCat shows in <100 institutions. It also lists some edited works of more famous authors like Camile Paglia, but these seem also to be held by <200 institutions. I think the clincher is that most of the sources are either extremely obscure (e.g. "Prof. C.A. Albright’s Creative Writing course, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA., February 28, 2005") or written by the subject herself. This is a relisted AfD and I think if better sources were out there, they'd have been found by now. Agricola44 (talk) 15:15, 6 July 2012 (UTC).


 * Keep. Joanna Clapps Herman has contributed to many articles and anthologies that build Italian American literature and expands on narratives. The references are not "extremely obscure," she is very influential and known in Italian American literary communities, and her work is accessible to those outside academic communities. Do you all think this article could be eligible for a stub? Srdemuro (talk) 15:41, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. Being "very influential and known in Italian American literary communities" would help her case if real sources could be found to confirm this – otherwise this statement is nothing more than testimonial. Conversely, "her work is accessible to those outside academic communities" is irrelevant. I think the only way to help this article is to find such sources. I couldn't. Agricola44 (talk) 19:16, 6 July 2012 (UTC).


 * Delete I agree with Agricola44 that this does not meet WP:PROF or WP:GNG. Whether or not this is "eligible for a stub" is not a valid question: a stub is just an article waiting to be expanded (not a short article on borderline notable subjects), so our notability guidelines apply to stubs in the same way as to longer articles. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:25, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. I would expect an academic to have published more than just a memoir (The Anarchist Bastard) to meet Wikipedia notability criteria. Edited works do not count and contributions to journals are expected of academics these days. I don't see evidence of significant original work. One book, and a memoir at that, means nothing.--Zananiri (talk) 19:07, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree that "edited works don't count". Some edited works are highly notable and contribute to the notability of their editors. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 09:04, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I see what you're all saying. I was just hoping to help this article out by finding more resources. Srdemuro (talk) 22:40, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

This was my first article too so I want to learn more on how Wiki works. Srdemuro (talk) 22:40, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, I hope that this experience does not put you off. Creating new articles is one of the hardest things here. If you follow this kind of AfD debates for a while, you should get a better feel for what is considered acceptable for inclusion and what is not and then your next attempt will certainly fare better! --Guillaume2303 (talk) 09:04, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. I agree absolutely that 'some edited works are highly notable and contribute to the notability of their editor' but I was referring only to this particular case.--Zananiri (talk) 12:11, 7 July 2012 (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.