Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lydia Ugolini

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. Michig (talk) 09:03, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lydia_Ugolini

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

Contested PROD. Fails WP:AUTHOR. Her books are poorly represented in her own country and vanity published by her niece in English. In addition, most of the sources cited are unreliable, and an exhaustive search in both Italian and English turned up no other sources. BenedictineMalediction (talk) 18:33, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. BenedictineMalediction (talk) 18:33, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 18:55, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - the image and some sources are based on her father's fame; see WP:NOTINHERITED. Ping me if you think you can convince me otherwise. Bearian (talk) 21:12, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:55, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Bearian. Some of the biggest claims regarding her popularity and notability are either unsourced or the source is a dead link, like the two for her works being "required reading" in schools. I'd vote keep if there was better sourcing for these claims. INeverCry 06:31, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Her books are included in only a handful of libraries in Italy, according to the library search used as a reference in the article. With that poor a representation, I doubt there's any sourcing to be found for the claims. BenedictineMalediction (talk) 14:51, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As a wikinewbie not sure if this info is relevent - found a blog site that lists books about dachshunds, The Story Of A Rich Dog and A Poor Dog is one (maybe a wikipaedian who loves dachshunds could start an article on this);^[1] and isbn search comes up with lots of web sellers of the title.^[2] Coolabahapple (talk) 07:51, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

^ "Dachshund Books". www.doxielovers.com. doxie lovers club. 2015. Retrieved 5 February 2015.
^ "The Story of a Rich Dog and a Poor Dog (illustrated edition)". www.isbns.net. isbns.net. Retrieved 5 February 2015.

Thanks for the info, but inclusion on that particular list doesn't make the book notable, and neither does the number of sellers. (It's easy to get hundreds of sellers just by signing up with the right service.) If you're interested in what makes a book notable, take a look at WP:NBOOK. BenedictineMalediction (talk) 15:52, 5 February 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.

[1] "Dachshund Books". www.doxielovers.com. doxie lovers club. 2015. Retrieved 5 February 2015.

[2] "The Story of a Rich Dog and a Poor Dog (illustrated edition)". www.isbns.net. isbns.net. Retrieved 5 February 2015.

[1]

[2]