Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laura Stack (2nd nomination)


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 00:07, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Laura Stack
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article has been recreated again without any RS to notability other than advertorials advertising the author's books. Since the articles re-creation, have Googled around and can not find any notability. --Aspro (talk) 15:07, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2016 September 27.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 15:29, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:06, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:06, 30 September 2016 (UTC)


 * delete per nom and salt, possibly G4 - as well as the 2011 deletion it was recreated in 2012 and speedied with almost the exact present text - David Gerard (talk) 09:11, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. The references are not ABOUT her; she simply gets quoted in articles about something else, which is specifically not enough for notability. --MelanieN (talk) 02:47, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep actually as although given the history, her books are held in over 15,000 libraries suggesting there is certainly the capability of an article, especially since the highest held book is in 786 libraries alone, the NYT review also helps, and if this exists, other reviews exist, especially with 15,000 libraries worldwide collecting the books. The Keep vote is not suggesting they actually considered the NYT review and the massive library collections as the same can be said about the 2nd Keep vote, so my analysis shows here there's enough for an article, past article controversies put aside. SwisterTwister   talk  04:40, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Tentative Keep -- appears to meet WP:NAUTHOR per ST. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:07, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * hmm, ok - do we have sources for an actual article, though? - David Gerard (talk) 10:01, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. The fact that her books are held in many libraries is completely irrelevant.  What is relevant is that there is precious little out there about her that is independent and substantial.  The NYT review possibly makes a case that her book "Leave the Office Earlier" may be notable, but it contains a grand total of one sentence about Stack herself.  Does not meet WP:NAUTHOR.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:26, 8 October 2016 (UTC).
 * Delete on second thoughts, as I could not find any coverage either. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:31, 8 October 2016 (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.