Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lauren Manning

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) Kraxler (talk) 15:40, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Manning

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

Delete: cannot derive notability as an indiscriminate VICTIM; any post 9/11 notability would appear to be a continuing seam or thread from that day onward. I know, I know: I must be a heartless bastard. Quis separabit? 22:57, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agreed, notability isn't fleeting, the book referenced in the article appears to be self published by Lauren's husband and apparently hasn't sold many copies based on it being ranked below #375,000 in books by sales volume. Nefariousski (talk) 23:10, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 23:32, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No real reason offered for deletion. WP:VICTIM has nothing to do with WP:N. WP:VICTIM is all about criminal events, not victim-survivors of 9/11. This nomination is bogus. Toffanin (talk) 23:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe delete if she can't be mentioned somewhere else as my searches found nothing to suggest better improvement than this and this. SwisterTwister talk 07:05, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SisterTwister is a diligent editor, but I have found, as here: Douglas Al-Bazi that her assertions of a lack of sources can be, well, what can I say, I have found extensive sourcing on AFDs brought or supported by SisterTwister, who works very quickly and deserves credit for spotting many, many legitimate candidates for deletion. However, re: Lauren Manning, take a look at this quick search [1] which begins with this full profile in vogue magazine [2].E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:43, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just needs better sourcing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:37, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And a trout to the Nom for bringing this without a thorough WP:BEFORE.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:44, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing Results of simple search on 9/11 "Lauren Manning" [3] results on google news [4]. ARticle just needs editing and sourcing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:25, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Her book Unmeasured Strength can also be sourced [5].E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:27, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Manning's memoir, Unmeasured Strength is now bluelinked. Both articles (person and book) need work. This is such an obvious keep that I suggest that editors coming here simply write Keep or Snow Keep and put the time you would have spend refuting this remarkably lame AFD into improving the page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:49, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is that the page is weak not because the topic is unimportant, but because it is too painful for many of us to deal with. Even after all these years.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:49, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:55, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"This is such an obvious keep that I suggest that editors coming here simply write Keep or Snow Keep" -- interesting. @E.M. Gregory: are you moving pawns around a chess board or making marionettes dance? I see no keep consensus as of yet, much less a SNOWBALL. Quis separabit? 17:36, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per above as well as per sources - This is something that should never be deleted and should never have even been nominated, An article likes this needs improving not deleting period. –Davey2010^Talk 01:01, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Davey2010: I mean no disrespect but you should try to base your judgments on guidelines not sentimentality. Your rationale offers no reasoning, just emotion. 9/11 was devastating (I live in Lower Manhatan and was at work a quarter of a mile away from Ground Zero at 26 Federal Plaza that morning, just so you know I am not a heartless dick) but try to keep perspective. Quis separabit? 02:54, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To me, it looks as though User:Davey2010 based him assessment on policy: "as per sources." Followed with an expression of strong feeling, Quis separabit? responded based on feelings. It's oK to have feelings, as long as assessments are based on policy, facts, sources.08:41, 4 September 2015 (UTC)E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:12, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

E.M.Gregory's correct - I did say "per above as well as per sources" so it wasn't all strong feelings but yes I do have strong feelings when it comes to stuff like this, I very very rarely express my feelings here but I don't see a problem just aslong as you keep it relevant and to the point, Wow I'd imagine that was absolutely terrifying!, I've never thought that about anyone on here at all, You nominated based on notability so it's all cool :) –Davey2010^Talk 15:54, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:56, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Being a victim of a horrible event is one thing, but the point here is notability. And for this person to be behind a well-received book that's brought them recognition, with the likes of NPR, the New York Times, etc mentioning her story and her book prominently, then it looks like she passes the notability bar easily. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 14:31, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -Enough references provided above to confirm notability. ABF99 (talk) 15:28, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In addition to meeting Notability for her story, RS articles from 2008 to 2012, she is also invited to comment on related issues as late as June 2014.[6] Nomination does not meet WP:DEL-REASON and the article can be easily cleaned up. 009o9 (talk) 19:34, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources are reliable (NY Times, USA Today, CNN). The book by her husband about her got some national attention (although it itself cannot be considered a neutral source, but it adds to the story). The article is still a stub, and needs work. I was easily able to find 6 NY Times articles specifically about her or with substantial information about her. LaMona (talk) 03:55, 6 September 2015 (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.