Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lisa de Nikolits


 * 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   no consensus. (WP:NPASR). N ORTH A MERICA 1000 23:50, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Lisa de Nikolits

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:BLP of a writer whose article makes no strong claim of notability that would pass WP:WRITER (the strongest claim here is nominations for literary awards that aren't among the "top national award" class for which a mere nomination would constitute sufficient notability by itself), and citing little to no reliable source coverage to get her past WP:GNG instead. Further, this reads suspiciously like a marketing profile, with distincly unencyclopedic content like a list of every individual public reading she's ever given at any bookstore or library. No prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can create a good version which cites proper references, but a writer is not entitled to have a Wikipedia article just because she exists, if that article is relying almost entirely on primary sources and directory listings. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 19:43, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  Rcsprinter123     (rap)  @ 20:29, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  Rcsprinter123     (post)  @ 20:30, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions.  Rcsprinter123     (interact)  @ 20:30, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Keep. I'm seeing enough coverage of her and her works to satisfy WP:GNG. The article relies too much on sources that lack independence, and that should be addressed, but she has reviews in everything from Quill & Quire to Canadian Living and the Huffington Post. I agree with the nominator that the article reads like a marketing bio. That should be improved but it's not overtly promotional so it's no reason to delete it. T.C.Haliburtontalk nerdy to me 03:49, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 22:20, 7 January 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:32, 15 January 2015 (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.