Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Licia Troisi
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 10:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Licia Troisi[edit]
- Licia Troisi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Borderline notable Italian fantasy writer, 1,570 English Ghits but very little from reliable sources. No refs in current article, those in it:Licia Troisi are unimpressive - passing mentions. English article has already survived a prod, it may well be possible to demonstrate notability but like I say this one just feels very borderline. FlagSteward (talk) 02:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable. Its been on my watchlist for me to get around and AfD. MBisanz talk 02:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep; I saw her books in brick-and-mortar bookshops, and this is generally far more than what is requested for the notability of authors. You also forget to mention the reason I gave when removing the prod tag: "published 6 books with the second biggest Italian publisher" (the publisher is Mondadori [1]). Note that the number of English Google hits is irrelevant. This is the English version of an international encyclopedia, not an enclyclopedia for English-speaking countries. If something is notable for English-speaking people so is for people of other languages, and vice versa. Tizio 13:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Publishing books in itself does not establish notability, not even if they can be bought in a shop. You need independent, third-party reliable sources discussing her. And yes, Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia - which means that as per Wikipedia:Notability on a global scale over time "what's listed should be notable both around the globe and throughout time. The items selected should be relevant to all Wikipedians, regardless of nationality, interests, and beliefs." Umberto Eco would be an example of an Italian writer who is of global notability; as yet we have had no indication that Ms Troisi is of similar stature. FlagSteward (talk) 14:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Publishing a series of books (rather than a single one) with an important publisher (rather than PublishAmerica or similar) is an indication of notability to me. Anyway, I believe there is a little disagreement over what's is important around the globe. I just followed the "random article" link and obtained Vest, Kentucky. Is this notable around the world? Judging from the number of people having discussed Troisi's books (in Italian, but we agree this is not important) the two are at least comparable as a global impact. Tizio 15:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If you think the Vest article should be deleted, then AfD it. But it's irrelevant to this debate, as per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. As is the publishing of books - as per WP:BIO, "Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject". If she's notable - and I repeat, I'm willing to be convinced that she is - then the coverage from independent, reliable sources will exist. If not, she's not. FlagSteward (talk) 19:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've seen the "keep because this other article exists" argument used many times, and I totally agree than two wrongs don't make a right. What I's saying is rather that one topic may be important even if it's only important on a somehow local scale. In this particular case, several people have discussed Troisi's work, such as [2][3][4] (the last comment is quite negative, which ironically show notability better than the others, since it's sure to be independent from the subject of the article). Tizio 13:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't quite work like that though - the geography articles are a bit of a special case, there's a "completeness" consideration which means that there should be an article about the municipal administration of every square metre on the planet. Thus Vest is there to "complete" coverage that began with Vladivostok and Rome. That completeness argument doesn't apply to people, otherwise WPBIO would have 6 billion articles! There's established guidelines for notability, you don't need to invent new ones by analogy with other fields - there needs to be multiple independent coverage from reliable sources. It's all about the quality of the sources - this debate is finished if you can demonstrate articles in La Stampa and La Repubblica that are principally about Ms Troisi (ie not a passing mention). See WP:SOURCES - it looks like your first reference from mangialibri.com is getting there, a dedicated books website has thought her notable enough to interview. Not a great source, but a start. On the other hand booksblog.it and zam.it are not suitable sources - see WP:SPS. Do you see the difference? It's all about the quality of the sources that are talking about her, La Stampa is good, a blog isn't. If she's notable, those articles will exist. FlagSteward (talk) 15:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Here you are: [5]. And no, finding it wasn't easy at all - having been referred in a printed newspaper and having the same article on the web are not quite the same. Tizio 16:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Bravo! That's the sort of thing we've been waiting to see, not the biggest article but La Stampa is as reliable a source as you'll get for stuff about Italy. Do you see the difference between that and zam.it?? That's the difference between notable and non-notable. Now, WP:NOTE requires "significant coverage in reliable sources", so technically we need another source of similar stature before the AFD can be withdrawn (and in English would be even better), but that La Stampa piece represents a massive step forward. Just make sure that it gets used in the article. :-)) Oh, and I'm not quite sure what you're saying about the online thing, it's quite OK to give references to things that only exist on paper if it's a good source that can be checked by other people, but obviously it's easier to check if it's online at an authoritative website like that of La Stampa. Best wishes. FlagSteward (talk) 19:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You are still missing my point. At this point I have lost any hope you will. We don't require a notability check for every single article; not every article pass through AfD. I've been around AfD for a couple of years now, and this has always been the case. This is the rationale beyond the "speedy keep" closure; in some cases, there is no point in following the letter of the policy while evidence is that its spirit is followed. For an author who have published 6 books with a publisher which is comparable to, say, Ballantine Books relative to the size of the country, there shouldn't be any need to insiste for a proof of notability. So, no, I am not wasting any more time for a second reference while even one should not have been necessary. Tizio 13:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Bravo! That's the sort of thing we've been waiting to see, not the biggest article but La Stampa is as reliable a source as you'll get for stuff about Italy. Do you see the difference between that and zam.it?? That's the difference between notable and non-notable. Now, WP:NOTE requires "significant coverage in reliable sources", so technically we need another source of similar stature before the AFD can be withdrawn (and in English would be even better), but that La Stampa piece represents a massive step forward. Just make sure that it gets used in the article. :-)) Oh, and I'm not quite sure what you're saying about the online thing, it's quite OK to give references to things that only exist on paper if it's a good source that can be checked by other people, but obviously it's easier to check if it's online at an authoritative website like that of La Stampa. Best wishes. FlagSteward (talk) 19:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Here you are: [5]. And no, finding it wasn't easy at all - having been referred in a printed newspaper and having the same article on the web are not quite the same. Tizio 16:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't quite work like that though - the geography articles are a bit of a special case, there's a "completeness" consideration which means that there should be an article about the municipal administration of every square metre on the planet. Thus Vest is there to "complete" coverage that began with Vladivostok and Rome. That completeness argument doesn't apply to people, otherwise WPBIO would have 6 billion articles! There's established guidelines for notability, you don't need to invent new ones by analogy with other fields - there needs to be multiple independent coverage from reliable sources. It's all about the quality of the sources - this debate is finished if you can demonstrate articles in La Stampa and La Repubblica that are principally about Ms Troisi (ie not a passing mention). See WP:SOURCES - it looks like your first reference from mangialibri.com is getting there, a dedicated books website has thought her notable enough to interview. Not a great source, but a start. On the other hand booksblog.it and zam.it are not suitable sources - see WP:SPS. Do you see the difference? It's all about the quality of the sources that are talking about her, La Stampa is good, a blog isn't. If she's notable, those articles will exist. FlagSteward (talk) 15:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've seen the "keep because this other article exists" argument used many times, and I totally agree than two wrongs don't make a right. What I's saying is rather that one topic may be important even if it's only important on a somehow local scale. In this particular case, several people have discussed Troisi's work, such as [2][3][4] (the last comment is quite negative, which ironically show notability better than the others, since it's sure to be independent from the subject of the article). Tizio 13:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If you think the Vest article should be deleted, then AfD it. But it's irrelevant to this debate, as per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. As is the publishing of books - as per WP:BIO, "Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject". If she's notable - and I repeat, I'm willing to be convinced that she is - then the coverage from independent, reliable sources will exist. If not, she's not. FlagSteward (talk) 19:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Publishing a series of books (rather than a single one) with an important publisher (rather than PublishAmerica or similar) is an indication of notability to me. Anyway, I believe there is a little disagreement over what's is important around the globe. I just followed the "random article" link and obtained Vest, Kentucky. Is this notable around the world? Judging from the number of people having discussed Troisi's books (in Italian, but we agree this is not important) the two are at least comparable as a global impact. Tizio 15:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Publishing books in itself does not establish notability, not even if they can be bought in a shop. You need independent, third-party reliable sources discussing her. And yes, Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia - which means that as per Wikipedia:Notability on a global scale over time "what's listed should be notable both around the globe and throughout time. The items selected should be relevant to all Wikipedians, regardless of nationality, interests, and beliefs." Umberto Eco would be an example of an Italian writer who is of global notability; as yet we have had no indication that Ms Troisi is of similar stature. FlagSteward (talk) 14:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Authoring six books published by a major publisher isn't just "an indication of notability" (per Tizio) -- it establishes notability. I can't imagine a circumstance in which it wouldn't be worthwhile to give our readers available bio information about such an author. JamesMLane t c 14:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. We don't have quite such precisely defined notability guidelines for authors as we do for the latest punk garage death groove metal bands (or whatever the latest sub-sub-sub-sub-genre is), but by analogy with the requirements of WP:MUSIC, which states that such a band is notable if it "has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels", we should treat an author as notable who has had two or more books published by a major publisher. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Tizio. Also, it should be kept in mind that most Italian newspapers don't keep a web version, differently from the US. Anyways, at least one of his books has been translated and reviewed also in Spanish[6].--Aldux (talk) 21:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep six books with Mondadori are enough to establish notability. Snowolf How can I help? 16:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notable enough, but article could use some expansion. — BQZip01 — talk 02:59, 26 February 2008 (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.