Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adria Vasil

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:04, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adria Vasil[edit]

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

No coverage in independent, mainstream sources shown, outside a short mention in The Globe and Mail [1] which by itself doesn't seem sufficient. Perhaps her book Ecoholic or the series of thereof would be notable, but even that would fail it based on existing sources. As it stands, fails notability for WP:AUTHOR. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:48, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ecoholic was reviewed in the Toronto Star, National Post and Canoe.ca. That alone would mean she meets WP:AUTHOR as far as I'm concerned. . Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:32, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:36, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:36, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Those sources focus on her book rather then herself. That said, if they are added to the article, they could help save it.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:08, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Those sources focus on her book rather then herself." Yes, that's precisely what criterion #3 of WP:AUTHOR allows for. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:50, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep There is quite a number of article in various newspapers, sites and blogs. It's a good article, well sourced, for a published author. scope_creep talk 18:27, 06 October 2013 (UTC)

Blogs are usually not reliable sources. It's best to link to sources so we know what you mean. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 00:25, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:06, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:08, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per substantial coverage of the author and her books in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 22:33, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Established journalist with plenty of articles in NOW Magazine. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 22:05, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Though I too think we should keep, I should point out that simply being published in Now, however often, doesn't seem to me to satisfy any part of WP:AUTHOR. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:13, 27 October 2013 (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.