Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S. E. Sever


 * 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. There seems to be no way around the lack of coverage in independent sources. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   02:06, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

S. E. Sever

 * – ( View AfD View log )

English writer who currently doesn't meet our criteria for including biographical articles. The article does provide two references but one is to her website and the other is to a short "About the author" blurb in a magazine she writes for. I am unable to find any material about her written by third-party sources. The claim that "her style has come to be known as 'Severesque'" is at best dubious. Note that if kept, the article also needs to be cleaned up for copyright issues. It's not speedy-deletion worthy but some parts are way too close to the original source. Pichpich (talk) 18:07, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete I say delete because it is non-notable. As it only has two sources that are not thrid party sources. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 18:53, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. There aren't enough reliable third party sources to prove notability and a search only brings up links to pages created or edited by the author herself or one of her agents. Sever did have one article in a magazine, but I don't really think that's enough to prove notability in this instance. Getting published doesn't automatically mean notability, nor does participating in a reality show. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:50, 12 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79
 * Reality show? I don't see the connection. Pichpich (talk) 04:56, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * She starred in an episode of the UK version of Dragon's Den, a reality show where people try to pitch their ideas to a small group of investors. A fun show and not exactly along the same reality show lines as Bachelor or Jersey Shore, but still a reality show. Each episode shows different people coming on, so it's not like it's a reoccurring role either. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:27, 12 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79
 * Sorry, misread that. She was interviews by the creators for a different reality show (The Last Tycoon) where she (and others) are given money and a set amount of days to raise as much money as possible. The show doesn't seem to be overly notable either since there aren't many mentions of it on the web and what sources there are available don't really focus on her or really even mention her. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:32, 12 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79
 * Keep. While article does fail notability to some degree, it is no different than having pages for individuals that have been on tv shows. Sin City London (talk) 13:43, 12 November 2011 (UTC) — Sin City London (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * We do not systematically maintain articles for every individual that has ever been on a TV show. In fact biographical entries are all subject to the same requirements. Pichpich (talk) 16:05, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes I understand. Requirements say "occasional exceptions may apply": "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." Sin City London (talk) 17:19, 12 November 2011 (UTC) — Sin City London (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Sure, occasional exceptions may apply but why is an exception warranted in this particular case? Even though it's ok to ignore some rules at times, it's never ok to ignore the fundamental policies on which the whole project rests. Content added on Wikipedia should be attributable to a reliable, published source. This is non-negotiable and in the present case, such sources don't seem to exist. Pichpich (talk) 17:34, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * KEEP*.. I understand clearly the rule for verifiable sources;however, does the rule require more than one source? Not all worthy of a Wiki are household names, nor prolific. Van Gogh didn't sell one piece in his lifetime, but he would have deserved a Wiki, no? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ISamantha (talk • contribs) 18:46, 12 November 2011 (UTC)  — ISamantha (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * The notability guidelines typically require multiple sources but if you can point to one reliable third-party source, it would be a start. Personally I've failed to find one. Pichpich (talk) 18:53, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - completely fails to meet basic notability criteria. Misses speedy deletion by a whisker. andy (talk) 21:56, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep it! I googled S.E. Sever today as I read an interesting article by her in Pi Newspaper. I don't think this article needs deleting, I think it needs more editing! I'll add the source I encountered soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.104.212.26 (talk) 23:16, 12 November 2011 (UTC) — 213.104.212.26 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep it! I had added relevant citations to this page Libibic (talk) 12:49, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Not according to the page history - unless you are User:213.104.212.26 in which case you !voted twice using different IDs. Anyway those references don't in any way show notability: #3 and #6 don't mention her at all and the others are either copies of her article or self-published material. Absolutely nothing independent, which is a minimum requirement. andy (talk) 13:21, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hang on! I am the User:213.104.212.26 and I haven't added the article I mentioned yet, but I will as promised. I don't think anyone deserves to be accused of double voting here.
 * Since you are User:213.104.212.26 and you both said "Keep" I've struck out one of them, in order to avoid confusion. andy (talk) 15:41, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * But my point was that the other person wasn't me! You struck out someone else's "Keep". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.104.212.26 (talk) 16:13, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That's the sort of thing that happens when you don't sign your posts! andy (talk) 16:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hands Up! You're right andy. I'll be more careful from now on. Sorry to cause confusion. —Comment added by 213.104.212.26 (talk) 18:29, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: Since there are a lot of single purpose accounts weighing in, I just want to let you guys know that this is not decided on a vote. You have to back up your "keep" opinions with reliable sources that prove notability. Saying that you find her interesting or hinting that other articles might not be wikipedia worthy aren't good arguments to keep a page. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:56, 15 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79


 * Delete - Lacks coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:22, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete sourcing with [WP:RS]] is not optional. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:12, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - The reference of this page are reliable. Bonnymdyohl (talk) 12:19, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No they're not: one is promotional material, two are her own work and one doesn't even mention her at all. andy (talk) 12:30, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Obviously Sever is a new writer. Even though her work seems influencial, I'll have to agree that at least one independant source mentioning her name is a must. I'll say, if this can be added, Keep it! VoodooMaster (talk) 20:31, 15 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.40.128.98 (talk) — 128.40.128.98 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete shame - can't find anything 'in depth' and 'independent' to corroborate the claims in the article in line with WP:GNG - otherwise would be notable I think. --Joopercoopers (talk) 01:44, 22 November 2011 (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.