Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monica Larner


 * 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 per WP:HEY. The nomination appears to have been made in good faith, but the article has been improved by the addition of heretofore unlikely sources. Bearian (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:48, 18 December 2013

Monica Larner

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Lacks sufficient reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability under WP:GNG or evidence of notability in lieu of sources under WP:ANYBIO. Most of the sources offered are either primary or fail to mention the subject at all. The only possibly relevant secondary sources are two articles offering routine coverage of the same unremarkable industry award. Msnicki (talk) 23:28, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Additional relevant secondary sources added and included recent controversy involving subject with citations to Forbes and Wine-Searcher. --WineDWS (talk) 18:53, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The only secondary sources present are the WSJ article that I can't read all of but isn't directly about the subject, the NY Times and independent articles which don't mention the subject, an unreliable Forbes article, and an italian article in which she receives a mention. This just isn't good enough, especially for a BLP. Samwalton9 (talk) 20:16, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * WSJ, NYTimes and Forbes all directly mention and are certainly valid, reliable sources. --WineDWS (talk) 18:55, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll take your word with WSJ. NYTimes definitely doesn't, providing you're still referring to the one I linked above. The Forbes article is unreliable because it's written by a 'contributor', who is not a member of staff at Forbes; in case you're unaware Forbes recently changed their content to allowing many more people to publish content on their site as with the Huffington Post. Samwalton9 (talk) 19:10, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I do have a subscription to the WSJ and I did look at that article. It doesn't even mention the subject.  Msnicki (talk) 20:07, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Do not Delete this person is quite notable in the world of wine. I am a fan of the publication where she publishes. Perhaps I can find additional sources. --WineDWS (talk) 18:17, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete this person doesn't appear to be notable; the article itself is appears to be self-promotional. Barney the barney barney (talk) - I suspect and  are related. Barney the barney barney (talk) 10:45, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree. I think User:WineDWS and User:MonicaLarner are the same person. I note that the photo of the subject by the subject was uploaded by WineDWS, the author of the article, suggesting that this article was created as an autobiography, a practice we discourage per WP:AUTO.  I've opened an SPI case at Sockpuppet investigations/WineDWS.   Msnicki (talk) 06:35, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - Does not appear to be notable from an internet search. Samwalton9 (talk) 23:42, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep She is a published author with books published through Rizzoli publication that is part of RCS MediaGroup (So a legit published author, not just self-published.) Also, being a head critic at the Wine Advocate for a major wine region is a big deal with it being one of the heights of the profession. (i.e. Antonio Galloni, David Schildknecht, etc). Furthermore, when you use a internet search engine that focuses on wine-related reliable source you find oodles of hits (several thousand) that clearly passes WP:GNG. Even Forbes and Newsweek cites her as a reliable source. AgneCheese/Wine 02:22, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm still not hugely convinced. I'm not certain of the policies/guidelines regarding authors, is having published books a sign of notability? As for the sources, as I mentioned above the Forbes article is not reliable (written by a 'contributor'), and the second has her opinion on something, and isn't about her herself. As for the Able Grape link, can you find enough information actually about Monica rather than written by her or containing a comment from her? Samwalton9 (talk) 10:11, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It's interesting that you dismiss the many time times when Larner is cited as an authority on wine when one of the major notability criterion at WP:AUTHOR states 1.) The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. Being the head critic of a major wine region for The Wine Advocate puts Larner in high regard within the wine industry. And as we can see from several links, she is cited often cited by reliable sources as an expert within her field, due in part, to her being a published and well established wine writer. AgneCheese/Wine 07:30, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * We can also add WP:ANYBIO's notability criterion of 1.) The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times. with Larner's winning one of wine journalism highest honors being named "Best Young Journalist of the Year for the second time in four years." AgneCheese/Wine 07:38, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Even if notability can be established like that, are there any/enough reliable sources about her specifically to write anything substantial in the article? Samwalton9 (talk) 17:12, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Notability is established by WP:ANYBIO, WP:GNG and subpolicies like WP:AUTHOR all the time which Larner clearly passes. There is no additional bar beyond those policies that an article needs to reach and as the old saying goes-WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP. The purpose of this discussion is to merely demonstrate that notability exist. Reaching one of the heights of her profession, being head critic of a major wine region for the hugely influential The Wine Advocate, is well sourced and the link I posted above of her winning, repeatedly, one of the highest honors in wine journalism and being cited as an expert in her field easily surpasses the bar of WP:GNG. AgneCheese/Wine 18:02, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 * There's no point in listing sections of the guidelines as reasons to keep unless the subject actually satisfies them. WP:GNG requires multiple independent secondary sources that are actually about the subject.  Those simply do not exist.  WP:ANYBIO gives alternative criteria in lieu of sources but the awards contemplated are things like Nobel Prizes, not minor industry awards that are definitely not well-known.  Similarly, WP:AUTHOR contemplates a lot more than simply being a wine critic.  The subject is not exactly Shakespeare.  Fundamentally, the problem here is that it is not sufficient on Wikipedia that a subject seem notable to that individual and her friends.  They actually have to be notable, meaning that others not connected to the subject must take note and they must do in reliable sources.  That simply hasn't happened.  There is simply nothing here on which to base a claim of notability.  Msnicki (talk) 20:07, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe you are demonstrating some systematic WP:BIAS here in your dismissal of major and significant achievements in the wine industry. Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia that covers a wide spectrum of disciplines, including wine. Just because something is not significant to you, personally, does not mean it is not significant on a global scale in other areas beyond your own interest and experiences. So, yes, major wine writers who reach some of the highest spheres of influence in the wine world (such as being the head critic for a major wine region for the highly influential The Wine Advocate as well previous work for Wine Enthusiast, another influential wine magazine) and who, repeatedly, win significant awards that carry great weight within in the industry are notable.
 * I have no connection to Monica Larner so your line that "the problem here is that it is not sufficient on Wikipedia that a subject seem notable to that individual and her friends" is false. The subject seems notable to [[User:Agne27#Eh.3F|

veteran Wikipedians]] who have extensive experience working on wine articles and dealing with wine-related reliable sources. She seems notable because she passes several of WP:ANYBIO, WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR criteria and has clearly achieved a position of significance and influence within wine journalism. I find it a tad humorous that I'm often accused of being a "deletionist" in WP:WINE circles due to my more hardline stance on wine-related notability and have no problem calling a spade a spade when the subjects are clearly not notable. I have as little patience for self-promotion as the next Wikipedian and do not doubt that the Monica Larner article can be improved but, in the world of wine, Larner's notability is unquestioned. So unless we change the notability rules to only make Shakespeare and other Anglo/Pokemon/18-35 male demographic/Etc topics eligible then this is an easy keep. AgneCheese/Wine 21:21, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 * You have every right to your opinion based on your personal knowledge of the broad topic of wine and of this specific subject. The problem is that WP:IKNOWIT is an argument to avoid.  We're all (or at least, most of us) anonymous here.  We agree to decide things based on published sources, not assertions that on this, we're an expert, so trust us. I profess no special knowledge of either wine or this individual.  I'm attracted to AfDs because I enjoy the careful reasoning behind our requirements for multiple reliable independent secondary sources - and  our technical definitions of each of those words - as a way of objectively deciding whether notability is established and whether we should have an article without having to argue about which of us knows more about the topic. I understand that in your opinion the subject is well-known to anyone who knows anything about wine and unquestionably notable. If you think only a dunce would not know this, that's okay, too.  This is your right.  I'm sorry you took offense at my "friends" and "Shakespeare" comments but I'm also surprised that even this little bit of hyperbole would seem so much more important to you than my point about sources and the plain fact that we just don't have them, nor is there persuasive evidence she meets other criteria for notability in lieu of sources.  Msnicki (talk) 18:43, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 1 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:53, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep per the thoughtful and forceful analysis by, certainly one of our best editor on wine topics. I've done a little bit of editing on wine, and have disagreed with Agne once or twice, usually me contesting the editor's somewhat deletionist tendencies, as I see it. But those disagreements have always been respectful of Agne's expertise, which is far greater than mine in this field. So when Agne says that Monica Larner is notable, I am convinced, and the sources tell me so as well.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  00:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Can you indicate, please, which sources you rely on? Is even one of them reliable independent and secondary and actually about the subject?  Msnicki (talk) 06:35, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Although I know that you are critical of the Forbes source, I consider it quite good for a journalist. On the other hand, using your impossibly high standards, we could delete every biography of a journalist, and then move on to deleting Amy Tan, Mark Twain, Harper Lee and Kurt Vonnegut, all clearly inferior to Shakespeare. Let's start with that Lee woman, who was really nothing more than a one hit wonder. Perhaps WP:BLP1E?  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  07:14, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * My standards are not "impossibly high". They're simply the ones specified in our guidelines.  Entire books have been written about Mark Twain and Kurt Vonnegut, easily establishing their notability many times over; arguing there's any similarity between these famous authors and the subject at hand is just dumb.  The Forbes article is, at best, weak.  It's not even really about the subject; it's more about Vintner Fulvio Bressan's Facebook rant.  But thanks for clarifying that this is all you've got.  Msnicki (talk) 07:36, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * As for my argument being "dumb", it was a conscious and deliberate parody of your "not exactly Shakespeare" standard. As for the Forbes source being all that I've got, mentioning one source does not logically imply that no other sources exist. In my judgment, cumulatively, the sources of varying quality in the current version of the article add up to notability. You disagree, and so be it. Let the closing administrator sort it out.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  08:07, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The difference is that my comment made sense and yours doesn't. She's not exactly Shakespeare.  Is that really in dispute?  She's also not exactly Twain or Vonnegut or any other author most people would recognize. There are two ways to establish notability.  The usual way is multiple reliable independent secondary sources talking about the subject.  Those simply don't exist in this case.  The other way is to show notability in lieu of sources.  For example, any athlete who wins a medal at the Olympics is presumed notable per WP:NOLYMPICS. For authors and other creative professionals, it's possible to argue, per WP:AUTHOR, that "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors."  This allows us to have articles on scientists and others who publish important and widely-cited research and other material but whose personal lives attract less attention.  But it's not enough just to assert that an individual is regarded this way or widely-cited.  All that's changed is the evidence you need.  Instead of evidence (sources) about the subject, it changes to evidence (sources) demonstrating that high regard (and, no, an industry award for a "best young journalist" is not going to do it) or those numerous citations (not just WP:GOOGLEHITS, but citations in, e.g., Google Scholar) of the subject's work.  We just don't have that, either.  Msnicki (talk) 17:17, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep per Agne27. I couldn't have said it better. For anyone looking into wine, Larner's name comes up more than most writers as an expert. The comment by that Larner is "not exactly Shakespeare" is ridiculous, and she should focus on her work writing stubs on "not exactly important" microprocessors. --ColonelHenry (talk) 18:02, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * When you can't supply sources, there's always the ad hominem approach. Msnicki (talk) 18:18, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yep, just like when someone knows little about a subject, they put it up for AfD and make snarky and flippant comments, and then act as if their opinion of that subject matters. Sure, you can ignore the thousands of hits establishing notability (several mentioned by other commenters above), have fun with your microprocessor stubs. You're not exactly Shakespeare either.--ColonelHenry (talk) 01:56, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * WP:GOOGLEHITS are not helpful in establishing notability. That's yet another argument to avoid.  The personal attack is even less helpful.  Msnicki (talk) 06:19, 17 December 2013 (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.