Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susanna Tamaro


 * 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. (non-admin closure)  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 19:50, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Susanna Tamaro

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Fails WP:GNG. Only two sources are cited, one of which is primary. A Google search turned up no usable secondary sources. JMB1980 (talk) 19:27, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women,  and Italy. Shellwood (talk) 19:55, 14 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep Several Corriere interviews and one in the Independent found. Article would need a rewrite, but appears notable. I also find a peer-reviewed overview of her body of work (or one aspect of it) here . Oaktree b (talk) 20:11, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep The article seems to be translated from the Italian article which has very few references. This Gale author profile ("Susanna Tamaro." Gale Literature: Contemporary Authors, Gale, 2004. Gale Literature Resource Center, link.gale.com/apps/doc/H1000129901/LitRC?u=sfpl_main&sid=ebsco&xid=52a812c4. Accessed 15 Mar. 2022.) fills in the biographical info and gives some useful links for reviews, etc. Her books have sold millions although she is not as well known in the English-speaking world as she is in others. I have found reviews in English and Spanish. I'll try to add some references. Lamona (talk) 16:25, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I found references for almost all of the awards; I added many ISBNs for her books. There is still a fair amount of biographical data that isn't referenced, but I suspect those will require access to Italian sources (most of which seem to be behind paywalls). I was able to add a few refs in that area. And, BTW, a Google search does indeed turn up some usable sources, like book reviews. And Google Scholar has numerous academic analyses of her work, plus there are two books (undoubtedly boringly academic) written about her by academics. So perhaps more WP:BEFORE was needed, but I'm glad to have had the heads up that the article needs work. Lamona (talk) 00:26, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep The English article is a mess, but the sources on the Italian version pretty clearly show notability up to the requisite standard. Atchom (talk) 17:59, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep My initial online search found book reviews from Kirkus Reviews (two), The Independent (two), Los Angeles Times, and The Christian Science Monitor, and two capsule book reviews, as well as a review from Variety for the film based on her award-winning "Italian book most sold in the 20th century". The sources have been added to the article, and WP:AUTHOR notability is well-supported, i.e. #3 The person has created [...] a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of [...] multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, and #4 won significant critical attention due to the awards. Beccaynr (talk) 02:41, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * As I begin to review sources on the Wikipedia Library and add them to the article, the volume of support for notability reminds me of another article about an author with Asperger's syndrome recently brought to AfD by this nominator. Beccaynr (talk) 15:22, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Beccaynr (talk) 03:29, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep, either a very lazy WP:BEFORE or more probably no WP:BEFORE at all. The Italian version of the page lists several dozen RSs. Among other things, she has an entry in Who's who in Contemporary Women's Writing (Routledge). Cavarrone 15:13, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Snow keep per above and a note that this nominator has made several other AfD noms of similar dubious quality. Montanabw (talk) 05:21, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - as per comments above, and to reiterate concern that the nominator is perhaps inadvertently, and perhaps in good faith, repeatedly nominating neurodiverse authors for deletion. Lajmmoore (talk) 09:01, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - as per comments above, and to reiterate concern that the nominator is perhaps inadvertently, and perhaps in good faith, repeatedly nominating neurodiverse authors for deletion. Lajmmoore (talk) 09:01, 18 March 2022 (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.