Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emmy Morgan

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. ✗plicit 00:34, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Emmy Morgan[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Quite simply fails the WP:GNG guideline. The sources are almost exclusively self-published or not third-party and even then, the coverage is superficial. Her two books were self-published and the rest of her work appears to be on non-notable projects. Finally, the username strongly suggests that the article is an autobiography. Pichpich (talk) 00:06, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:08, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:08, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:08, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:08, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with storm and fire: Complete vanity article of NN subject. No ground to add to the nom's cogent assessment, save that the quality of writing of the article is nowhere close to even minimal professional standards. Ravenswing 11:01, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment original creator has moved the entire text to their talk page, when their intent was clearly to move it to draft space. It's probably eligible for speedy-deletion as misuse of talk-page, but that would be unhelpful as it's a mis-move. Maybe someone can move it to the right place? I don't know how. Elemimele (talk) 12:56, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted the move. It's now back in mainspace. --Finngall ^talk 16:36, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with all the other comments that this is an article likely to be deleted. But I don't think we're following correct procedure. The article's creator obviously intended to retract it back into draft-space, and we ought to respect that decision. If it re-emerges into main space it would be eligible for deletion, but I do think that the most helpful thing to do in the current circumstances would be to move to draft, and advise the creator to take a good look at the criteria for notability of biographies. Elemimele (talk) 21:35, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree; it's not helpful at all. Let's be realistic: the subject is light-years from notability, and if this is indeed a COI, never will be on account of her writing. All pushing this into draft space would do is kick the can down the road for a G13, and perhaps hoodwink the creator into thinking that there's a chance. I'd encourage the creator, instead, to improve her writing skills and seek to contribute in other ways. Ravenswing 22:12, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ravenswing said it better than I could. Complete promotional piece and zero notability. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 16:58, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacks reliable sources and doesn't seem to have any claim to meeting WP:CREATIVE or WP:ANYBIO or any other guideline Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:09, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – A little too soon for someone who hasn't done so much. Anything she has theoretically worked on is non–notable as well. Should some form of notability be met in the future perhaps, but not now.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 22:54, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - None of the provided sources are independent or reliable, and I found nothing better. @Elemimele: I wouldn't object to draftification if the state of the article was simply "needs work", but if I were evaluating this as an AfC draft, I'd be inclined to reject rather than simply decline. I've seen way too many COI authors create articles in mainspace straightaway or promote them from draftspace themselves without a proper evaluation, then quickly try to move their articles back to draftspace as soon as the AfD tag drops, trying to use the self-draftification as a means to avert deletion and divert scrutiny. It doesn't work that way, and such behavior should not be validated. --Finngall ^talk 23:15, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:39, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.