Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nancy Mangano

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. slakr^\ talk / 10:10, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Mangano[edit]

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

PROD contested by article's creator. The article has zero third-party independent sources that show any notability whatsoever; the article fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO and WP:AUTHOR. While the article does have plenty of press releases, blogs, primary sources and Amazon and other book sale links, none of those contribute towards notability. Aoidh (talk) 23:27, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE There seems to be too many pieces like this on wiki, if something or someone is truly notable, there are sources.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 23:40, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why Aoidh keeps saying "zero independent sources". Her work is well documented and she has a large following on Social Media. Anyway, I have added some more references.

Her books have won 3 awards.
She has been on TV.
She has been on the radio.
Her work is talked about in various publications.
She has appeared in 3 feature films.
She has worked in various TV stations.
She has written two screenplays.

KEEP Aximilli Isthill (talk) 00:27, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I "keep saying" zero independent sources because that's an accurate assessment of what is wrong with the article. The new references you added are the same kind of references which fail to show any notability for the subject. This is nothing more than a verbatim copy of a press release. This is little better than having a YouTube page; not a reliable source. Followings on social media and having "been on tv" without any context or significance does not show notability. She has to be shown to meet some notability criteria, most easily by showing reliable, third-party sources which are independent of the subject. This article doesn't even have that, which is why it was nominated for deletion. It reads like a résumé, not a Wikipedia article, which is why articles need third-party sources, to help structure an article from a disinterested perspective so that it doesn't come across looking like a promotional piece and to show that notability has been established for the subject. - Aoidh (talk) 00:33, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please listen to the radio show and TV show for context. The awards and her work are well documented. As are her appearances in the feature films. Of the 20 posted references, 19 are independent sources. Only 1 is from her official site. I would say that 20,000 fans on social media is some measure of notability (When I added this to the article you deleted it as "puffery"- I'm not sure why, but I will defer to your judgment. I suppose Facebook is not a good reference?). As for context I did put this entry in the appropriate categories and dare say that she is far better referenced and notable than the majority of other authors. If you can help me find additional sources, I would be most thankful.

Aximilli Isthill (talk) 00:46, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have a different definition of independent source than Wikipedia (or general usage of the term). Amazon selling the book? Not an independent source. A PR firm pushing a book? Not an independent source. This directory listing you just added? Not an independent source. This isn't even a reliable source, let alone one that should show notability. It seems like you're searching Google for anything that might be relevant and adding it to the article, but the problem is that if this is all that can be found, it just confirms that the subject doesn't warrant an article on Wikipedia. As for the number of fans on social media, that doesn't show notability as Wikipedia determines it. You can buy fans to inflate numbers, so that metric is meaningless. If reliable sources covered that number noting that it's significant, that's be another thing, but that's not the case here. - Aoidh (talk) 01:12, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Both intelius and manta are independent & reliable sources. Anyway I don't want to get into an argument with you. Looks like you really want this to be deleted for some reason right from the time I posted it. If not, please help me find other sources if you can spare the time. Otherwise I will leave it to the others to judge. Aximilli Isthill (talk) 01:19, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Both of those websites are little more than phone book directories; unless you're suggesting that having your phone number in the phone book makes you notable enough for a Wikipedia article, that should explain why those don't show notability. If you disagree you are welcome to bring up the question at WP:RSN so that you don't have to take my word for it. Just because those sites have Wikipedia articles themselves does not mean they are suitable references; Tumblr has a Wikipedia article, that doesn't mean any tumblr pages are reliable sources that show notability just for that fact. I "want it to be deleted" because it's an article about a non-notable individual that fails to have any appropriate sources, which is a huge problem for biographical articles of living persons, which must be held to a higher standard than other articles because of the nature of the articles. This article fails to meet even the most basic criteria for notability so it cannot possibly meet WP:NPOV, which is an issue and why the article should be deleted until more notability is established for the individual. - Aoidh (talk) 01:44, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 00:57, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't take my statements out of context. Intelius and Manta links are used as references for her personal life (which you initially deleted as unsourced), not notability. I have added even more references to establish notability. Television and radio appearances, awards, magazine and newspaper features etc. Aximilli Isthill (talk) 02:23, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing was taken out of context. Directory listings aren't independent sources when in that situation; if I create a profile somewhere, that profile is not independent of myself. Further, none of the reference you've added show notability in any way whatsoever. Those awards are a dime a dozen and no independent sources show them as notable in any way, certainly not to the point that they would show notability. A couple of trvial book reviews might show minimal notability for the book (which these don't), but they do nothing for the author. Working in television doesn't make someone notable unless reliable sources note this as significant in some way. Merely saying "Television and radio appearances, awards, magazine and newspaper features etc" has to be backed up by sources showing those as significant instances of those things, otherwise they do nothing whatsoever for notability. It doesn't matter what you can claim, what matters is what you can show through reliable sources, and this article shows nothing that would suggest notability, which is why it is inappropriate as a Wikipedia article. - Aoidh (talk) 04:33, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The awards are worth a dime a dozen? Says who? And you want to establish significance of obviously significant appearances? You seem to have made up your mind anyway, even if she won the Nobel or Booker prize it may or may not make a difference to you. Oh well. I spent hours putting this together and it is clearly notable. Your statements are bordering on the paranoid and ludicruous "buying fans to inflate numbers" to rebutt her following on social media, "awards are worth dime a dozen", "Being on TV, radio and print is not significant". I don't know why you want this deleted so bad but it isn't an ego contest for me (despite the time and effort I've put in). She happens to be a notable author and that's that. Aximilli Isthill (talk) 13:56, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand, I'm saying that fan numbers on social media can be bought, that's why those numbers are meaningless. I'm not suggesting she did. As for the awards, they are irrelevant unless shown to be significant. "Says who?" is exactly the point; you need to show they are significant, or they are not. You can't just claim they are and expect that to mean anything, especially when trying to use that as a sign of notability. That is the criteria required when you claim that the awards are relevant. In the future, if you put quotes around something someone said, make they they actually said that, because both of your quotes are inaccurate and neither what I said or meant. - Aoidh (talk) 21:07, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 00:58, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 00:58, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not appear to meet WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 07:33, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:AUTHOR #3 suggests that a creative professional who is the subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews could be considered notable enough for a Wikipedia encyclopedia entry, but I'm not finding that. The article currently has a blurb about being "featured in the South Africa Herald" but the reference is a dead link and when I try to find that article by other means, it appears to be behind a paywall. It appears to be an author interview conducted for one of her books. If it is actually an independent article, then a few more of these could be enough to meet notability. One of them isn't enough however. As a note to the article author, it's worth noting that this deletion discussion has nothing to do with the personal character of the article subject, or whether or not her books are any good, it's only about whether this author is notable enough today to have an encyclopedia entry about her. As she progresses in her career, she may well cross that threshold. Neil916 (Talk) 17:59, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have added another reference to a newspaper article in the Orange County Register, and some more sources that demonstrate the notability of the awards she has won. Aximilli Isthill (talk) 00:01, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I did news sweeps of US, international, fashion, entertainment, got nada. Did 'Nancy Mangano' without any filters, searched 7 SERP pages, got nada.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:57, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And how did you do these "news sweeps"? Aximilli Isthill (talk) 00:01, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really wish to know? Or do you want to argue that my news sweeps are flawed?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:54, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There just is not enough reliable sources at this time discussing Ms. Mangano to establish she is a notable author per WP:AUTHOR or AP: GNG. The fact her work has won three awards does not make her notable. -- danntm ^T _C 04:43, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep There are a couple things I'd like to point out. First of all since I'm not American, I don't watch much US TV (even the satellites are below the horizon), don't listen to US radio (which work completely differently than their European counterparts) and check up on US news material sporadically only. Thus I can comment only on technicalities (and other, semi-related matters), not on notability itself.
First of all Aoidh it's obvious that you want to have that article deleted. Personal reasons or not, the fact that you added the "orphan" tag (among others) and then systematically thwarted/sabotaged all attempts at linking other articles to this one (by hastily deleting all the inbound links in the other articles) hints that you quite obviously have a chip on your shoulder. Since you're also eager to point out Wikipedia rules to an obvious lurker (more on this in a bit), let me point out one to you too: WP:DONTBITE
Notwithstanding all the hard times all of you have given to Aximilli Isthill, it's kinda obvious to me that he's still mostly a lurker. I mean not only his citations leave a lot to be desired, but even his internal article linking is wonky to say the least (uses full Wikipedia URLs instead of the [[]] tag). I also have a feeling that he isn't too familiar with the academic criteria for references and academics-style citing either. This is partly obvious from his edits and his comments above too, which could explain why did he post so many dubious (or even outright useless) references. So how about taking this into consideration when giving him the benefit of the doubt?
Tomwsulcer has also mentioned that his news sweep didn't turn up anything. Whilst I don't think that a person's notability can only be established by tabloids (I mean seriously? Only junk celebrities are notable?!), there are sources which still haven't been crawled by search engines and generally might not appear online. E.g. the latest source additions seem to include some useful sources too. In general I think that besides the effort Aximilli Isthill put into creating the article, he also went that extra mile collecting additional sources only because of the hard time Aoidh has given him AND this AfD request too. And since he's obviously already going out of his way to improve the article, I'm sure future improvements can be expected too. That's why the keep. -- CoolKoon (talk) 23:19, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Articles are kept because of sources that exist, not what you think might possibly exist, nor does the amount of effort put into an article make it notable or appropriate for a Wikipedia article. "Giving him the benefit of the doubt" is irrelevant; this discussion is about the article's subject, not the creator of the article, and see your talk page concerning your incivility. - Aoidh (talk) 06:17, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said: I do see some improvements in the latest edits i.e. relevant sources (from news portals). -- CoolKoon (talk) 22:15, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In contrast, the four editors above you did not. I'm not saying that makes you wrong, but they are the same sources that others viewed as well. - Aoidh (talk) 11:51, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – per nom and other delete votes above. Current sourcing doesn't demonstrate notability. As for the effort put into this article, it would be better spent expanding articles of notable writers, such as those at List of women writers. INeverCry 00:58, 19 September 2014 (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.