Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lynn Messina


 * 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:22, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Lynn Messina

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Non-notable author. Only claim to fame appears to be the novel Fashionstas which is claimed (without citation given nor any to be found) to be a national bestseller, and which was optioned by a producer in 2004, but never developed into a film. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:30, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm looking for sources, but if I can't find any then it might be worthwhile to create an article for Fashionistas and then use her name as a redirect if that ends up being the only thing she's notable for. I'm finding that there should be reviews for the book out there, so if all else fails then that could be a potential outcome.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 18:47, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Fashionistas doesn't appear that notable in itself. Claims that it is a bestseller can't be verified, and the movie deal is eight years old, but has gone nowhere.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:26, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * PS It should be noted that the article was created by an editor who appears to be a "Wikipedian for hire": he has created 15 articles in a single day, and they all have been speedily deleted, tagged for speedy deletion, or nominated for deletion at AFD. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:28, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. Be that as it may, if I can find reviews and coverage in reliable sources to show that the book received attention, it'd still pass WP:NBOOK if we have enough RS. I'm finding quite a bit of attention for the book in the Google news archives, so I'm leaning towards creating an article for the book, deleting the author's page, and using it as a redirect to the Fashionistas novel's article. She's done other works, but none of those appear to be notable enough for an article. The thing about the articles/subjects that the Wiki-for-pay authors create is that if they are notable or have something notable about them, that the subject was originally created in a semi-sleazy manner is sort of irrelevant. It just means that it'd have to be properly sourced and edited for any promotional tone. (Can you tell I hate the wiki-for-pay editors?) Hopefully the WFP editor has been blocked or is at least being watched by the admins, though.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:11, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per reviews and other mentions She's written a number of books that have received press attention, particularly Fashionistas and Little Vampire Women. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:15, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Here's a question though- if I were to make an article focusing on Fashionistas, could we use the same sources in both articles? I've not really read anything that says we can't, but I've always leaned towards putting everything in the same article if I had to use the same sources to RS different articles. (In other words, I didn't have enough RS to put different ones in each article.) If we can't or if it's discouraged, would there be enough RS for Messina's article if I were to create a Fashionistas article or would it be better to just have the one article with a ton of sources?Tokyogirl79 (talk) 16:07, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. Can't anyone post anything they want on Publishers Weekly?  If so, those refs don't mean a thing (and reek of puffery at any rate).  I'm still looking, but I haven't seen anything that makes me think that either the author or the book is notable enough for inclusion.  Heather (talk) 18:43, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. No, while PW does rely on interns to read and write reviews, it isn't the type of site where they accept submissions from just anyone. Anyone can submit a book for a potential review, but that isn't a guarantee that it'll be reviewed nor that it'll be a positive one if it's reviewed. PW tends to be pretty generous with reviews, but it's pretty much up to the person who is reviewing it. I've seen them write some pretty scathing reviews of books in the past. I usually prefer to have PW as a backup to other, more in-depth reviews though. As far as sources go, there's less than I'd normally like but River Front Times and the St. Louis Dispatch aren't exactly sources to sneeze at. In any case, in order to get PW to post your review or column you'd have to pretty much be employed by them in some format (intern, standard employee, etc). It's not as easy as you submitting a review or article and having them post it, which is why the website's been usable as a source in the past.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:24, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep As she has written more than one significant book. Fashinstas is in 484 libraries, Little vampire women -- which looks like a fascinating rewrite of Little Women (", the girls are vampires and neighbor Laurie wants to join them." according to the WorldCat entry) has 523; the other 3 have several hundred each also.   In general, even if it is only one book, it makes more sense to write the article about the author, as the author may write more (and generally does, if one becomes notable) & so there is potential for expansion. I agree exactly with Tokyogirl about PW. It is very selective, though the reviews are quite brief; it is used primarily by librarians, & concentrates on the books they are likely to buy--which are as well as they can predict it, the ones likely to become notable  DGG ( talk ) 04:55, 28 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,  Sandstein   06:07, 29 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 12:55, 6 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.