Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LaSara FireFox


 * 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. (non-admin closure)  TheSpecialUser TSU 03:35, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

LaSara FireFox

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable writer who has published one non-notable book, failing WP:AUTHOR and WP:BK. There's absolutely nothing more to say about her. And that's the problem. Qworty (talk) 07:59, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: I've cleaned out the vast majority of stuff in the article that relied on primary sources or other sources that wouldn't show notability. Of the sources in the article, I'm not feeling too solid on them. Here's my rundown:
 * 1) Modern Pagans: There's nothing to show that this particular book would be considered a reliable source enough to show notability. RE/Search itself has an article so that's a note in its favor. However a search for the credentials of the author or the editor gives little to show that they would be an authority on the subject. Establishing whether this could be used as a RS would probably have an effect on other articles that also list this as a RS.
 * 2) This is a news article in a German language paper. It's good and although it's one of those fluffy articles (no sex pun intended), it does count towards notability.
 * 3) This is a primary source and I left it because otherwise this would cause most of the article to be removed and pretty much be a 1-2 sentence article. I didn't use it as heavily as it was originally used, certainly.
 * 4) This is a free alternative paper and while that doesn't mean it can't be a RS, some papers of this type are less reliable than others. In this case the article isn't quite a mere listing of an event or a press release, but it's not an in-depth article either.
 * 5) This seems to be an actual article, which is good, but I'm not sure how in-depth it is. It looks like it'd be a RS towards notability, however.
 * The bigger issue here is that I can really only say that two of these sources are reliable enough to show notability. The others are a little suspect, so this isn't as easy as saying "yup, notable".Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:55, 14 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak delete. If there was one more solid source I'd say it should be kept, but the other sources I'd found just aren't solid enough to where I think they show enough notability to warrant an entry. If anyone can prove that Modern Pagans is a reliable source, I'm willing to count that, but I don't really see anything that shows that it's a reliable source.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 15:11, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:44, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:44, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:44, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Keep Highbeam yielded four results, including the Washington Post (Peter Carlson. "Hex Advice, Coven To Coven." The Washington Post. Washingtonpost Newsweek Interactive. 2003. HighBeam Research. 17 Nov. 2012 .) and the Chicago Sun-Times (Debra Pickett. "'I've never been able to be monogamous successfully'." Chicago Sun-Times. Sun-Times News Group. 2005. HighBeam Research. 17 Nov. 2012 .) These two sources should put her over the bar. The CST source, in particular, is an in-depth interview which includes a short review of Sexy Witch   Th e S te ve   08:26, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep on the basis of the CST interview. The Washpost article is about New Witch magazine, but does mention her column (copy, almost certainly a pirate, here)Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:22, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep As per the additional material added by  Th e S te ve , especially the interview in Chicago Sun-Times.Rosencomet (talk) 05:02, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * comment I have added the newspaper sources to the article, which I was too lazy to do yesterday. On a side note, Highbeam has certainly proven its worth to me, since the sources were, as Tokyogirl said above, "not too solid".   Th e S te ve   08:20, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. See my comment about Qworty's nomination for deletion of Brushwood Folklore Center. This is one of several inappropriate nominations for deletion that I feel should all be dismissed immediately. Folklore1 (talk) 01:31, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * weak keep Her one book is in only 32 libraries--even considering the small likelihood of most libraries buying something of this nature, that's not very impressive, but neither is like the zero holdings of some of the subjects of these articles. I'm not impressed by the rest, beyond saying it shows a certain talent at getting publicity, but the sources are technically adequate.  DGG ( talk ) 02:55, 19 November 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.