Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marianne gunn o'connor


 * 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Marianne Gunn O'Connor
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

One-line article about a literary agent with two sources - one small article about her in an Irish newspaper, mentioned in another article in the same paper. Whether these mentions are enough to assert notability is another question. Black Kite 20:49, 12 April 2009 (UTC) 
 * Neutral - Google search turns up several more sources, most quite trivial in nature. I'd like to observe that while the article creator seems quite keen on creating several new Irish chick lit articles, (s)he seems also to be quite content to ignore all admonishments to create these already properly sourced. Would advocate a merge and redirect to some Irish litterature article except I'm at loss to suggest an appropriate one. MLauba (talk) 21:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete for failure to establish notability. Eddie.willers (talk) 14:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Obvious delete on the basis that nobody who can't be bothered to properly capitalize the name of a biography subject can be bothered to properly document her notability. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 01:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep more tha 400 hits in randomly consulted webpages. Hard to conclude it is not notable!Rirunmot (talk) 03:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment If you found any non-trivial ones other than the one from the independent, feel free to add these to the article. Notability isn't the same as fame or importance. MLauba (talk) 07:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Leading member of her profession, with a lot of name recognition within the publishing industry.  Enough sources to justify a short article. JulesH (talk) 10:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't recognize the name and I regularly hang around literary circles. What do you base the idea on that there's a lot of name recognition? - Mgm|(talk) 11:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Largely because I recognised it, despite the fact that any connections I have to publishing are in an entirely different country to the one she operates in. This may be a biased sample issue, though, so forget I said it.  I still stand by the sources being adequate, though. JulesH (talk) 12:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete — Not notable in any way. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 11:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC))
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  —MLauba (talk) 13:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. An agent (not even a writer) with very few sources does not meet notability guidelines. Malinaccier (talk) 16:25, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm not seeing substantial coverage. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Either expand the article or delete it. This is next to useless, because anyone likely to have heard the name is likely to know what the article tesll them.  Yes, Wikipedia is a wok in progress, but that doesn't mean we get to sit around endlessly debating ideologies, it means we have to work to improve it. So either expand the article or delete it. Don't look at me, I'm too busy elsewhere, which is why I'm suggesting delete.  There's no point turning up all these brilliant sources if they just sit in an afd. If people don;t have the time to improve this article, it suggests the database is currently too vast and that we're all tied up elsewhere.  Cut back on the database, and we can better regroup for another period of expansion. Delete as stands. Hiding T 12:20, 28 April 2009 (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.