Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abigail Gibbs

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. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 09:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abigail Gibbs[edit]

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

There are concerns about the notability of this subject. Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 06:46, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It would be stretching it to describe this article as even asserting notability.--Michig (talk) 06:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I find no evidence she meets WP:AUTHOR. Glenfarclas (talk) 08:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After I left the above delete !vote, the following comment was left on my talkpage; I'm copying it here: Glenfarclas (talk) 15:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this article should not be deleted as the mentioned person is an immensely popular author, who has received rave reviews for her book which has 43 chapters as of now. This is not an easy feat for a 15 year old child and thus is very notable. Even if the book has not yet been published, we all make a start somewhere and having a page on a highly popular website like Wikipedia may just give the writer the boost she needs and realize the dream of getting her book published. Therefore it is my ardent request to just leave the page online and not delete it as, since Abigail Gibbs has a very large fan following, there will be a lot of visitors to this page.Jemimah 1603 (talk) 13:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless reliable sources indicating notability are provided. I found no relevant hits on a Google news search, and the only relvant hit on a Google web search was the Wikipedia page and a facebook entry, neither reliable sources. An ebook-only author could be notable, but only if there is significant discussion or coverage to point to, IMO. If there are "rave reviews", link to or cite them. It is surely true that "we all make a start somewhere", but no one should get a start on Wikipedia -- Wikipedia is not for that. Wikipedia is to cover subjects that have already gotten a start and become notable elsewhere. DES ^(talk) 16:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as A7. . It was tagged A7, the author contested it with a holdon, but I don't know why Tbsdy didn't simply delete it-- and I think it would be kinder to remove it as soon as possible. DGG ( talk ) 06:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought it best to take to AFD to get community consensus. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 06:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I would have declined an A7 on this, it makes claims of significance not implausible on their face. Indeed if someone found a reliable source to support the claims, i would change to a keep. I don't think that will happen, but sources for less likely claims have turned up. DES ^(talk) 16:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless reliable sources can be shown to suggest notability. RFerreira (talk) 23:26, 4 February 2010 (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.