Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Silvia Hartmann
- 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. postdlf (talk) 04:41, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Silvia Hartmann[edit]
- Silvia Hartmann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I'd come across her a while ago when someone requested that we write an article on a book she'd been writing live. I didn't see where her book was particularly noteworthy and the bigger issue with her is that she doesn't seem to have really been the focus of enough attention to warrant an article herself. The only thing she's really received attention from in RS is the book she wrote live and other than a handful of articles that mention her starting the project and even fewer that mention her completing it, there's nothing out there to show notability for her. The book project falls under WP:ONEEVENT as far as I'm concerned and it's not that major of an event to where she'd pass on that front. Someone came and re-wrote the article to where it reads more like a puff piece for her than an actual article, but it still isn't enough. I'd written up a more neutral version of it, but the previous editor that removed the PROD essentially reverted it to the previous edition and added more puffery to it in an attempt to save it. There just isn't enough out there to show notability for her. She comes close, but in the end falls shy of passing WP:AUTHOR or any other notability guidelines. Also, while this isn't exactly a reason to delete in and of itself, I noticed that this article has had a long-running issue with people coming on that are affiliated with Hartmann or her works in some way and using this as a place to promote her and her work. Now as far as her EmoTrance stuff goes, she very technically didn't create it but expanded on someone else's work. I can't see where she's mentioned that heavy enough to where she'd merit a keep based upon that work either. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 04:35, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's a rundown of the sources:
Sources
|
---|
|
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 06:30, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 06:30, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- The whole thing looks extremely fringe to me. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:59, 18 June 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, czar · · 08:09, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - because having had my own look, I find myself in almost total agreement with the nom's extensive analysis. Stalwart111 09:03, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete; low notability, and WP:FRINGE problems. The thorough nomination says it all - thanks, Tokyogirl79. bobrayner (talk) 02:27, 21 June 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.