Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vince Molinaro

Vince Molinaro

Vince Molinaro (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)

A well meaning editor has created this article without anyone explaining to him or her the notability issue. All sources in the article as it stands are self-written, passing mentions, and so on. He does have a book on NYT and other bestseller lists, but that's not enough. I've encouraged the creating editor to find appropriate sources and pointed him/her to his debate.

See Template:Did you know nominations/Vince Molinaro. EEng (talk) 19:05, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

• I contributed most of the article so obviously I vote Keep. It seems to me that Dr. Molinaro is a notable author because his book, published by a fairly reputable publisher, John Wiley & Sons, was on the New York Times Bestseller list. But if you choose to delete it, please move it back into my user space/sandbox at User:Woz2/Vince Molinaro. I'll work on it when I can. Or leave it in place with a {{Notability}} tag. Thank you. Woz2 (talk) 20:50, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

You need to read WP:CONSENSUS and think about how inappropriate your post just above is. No, it's not obvious that you "vote" keep, because (a) this isn't a vote, it's a discussion which will continue to the point at which it's clear that most of us agree on the right answer, and (b) you're supposed to be forming an opinion based on your best attempt to understand applicable guidelines and apply them to this situation. It's already been pointed out to you (at the article Talk page linked above) that writing a bestselling book does not make a person notable -- the article is about this man, not his book, so for notability we need sources about him, not how well his book sold. Yet here you come repeating the same argument as before. You should be commenting on how you think applicable guidelines apply to the facts here, not thinking of yourself as in some kind of tug-of-war where each side pulls the hardest until someone trips and falls. I repeat, for the last time, that if you want to see this article kept, go find sources making substantial comment about the man himself. I've tried and found nothing. An editor posting below has tried, and found nothing. You, for obvious reasons, may succeed where we have failed. So please focus on that or I'm afraid all your effort will be wasted, which would really be too bad. EEng (talk) 02:44, 30 May 2014 (UTC) P.S. If it helps put things in perspective, I just noticed that John Grisham's (!) notability is being questioned, because thought he's sold a lot of books and a lot has been written about them, apparently not much has been written about him. So many or most of his books may be notable (and therefore warrant an article on WP) but he may not be. Actually, I suspect that in the end someone will find some NYT or New Yorker profiles of him, etc., and he will turn out to satisfy notability, but again, the fact that it's being questioned should put things in perspective for you.

EEng, Maybe it's the nature of text-based communication, but I'm getting the sense both here and at the DYK that I've inadvertently written something that has annoyed you and that this whole thing isn't about the article at all, but about your annoyance at me personally. If this is so, I apologize for annoying you. I didn't mean to.Woz2 (talk) 13:05, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

The only thing that annoys me is that you're spending a lot of time talking about everything other than finding sources that will establish notability and save this article which you created, which is the only thing that matters here. EEng (talk) 15:13, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I've already invested a lot of time in it. I think the article is worth keeping as it is. Woz2 (talk) 22:07, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

As EEng has explained, we are looking for substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. For books, this requirement is often met by bona fide independent reviews in newspapers, magazines, scholarly journals, and the like. Blurbs on the cover of the book don't count because they're not independent. NYT bestsellers will usually (but not always) get some reviews; but my quick look through some Google results didn't come up with any such reviews, not even at Publishers Weekly and Kirkus Reviews. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:20, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. To be sure there's no confusion, the question here is notability of the author, not the book, so reviews of the book won't really help here either unless (as reviews sometimes do) they go into substantial background about the author. EEng (talk) 02:46, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Not according to WP:AUTHOR section 3: Reliable sources referencing an author's work bestow notability on the author. Woz2 (talk) 22:07, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

• Delete As others have explained, the primary criterion for notability is significant coverage in secondary sources. I'm not seeing that, but if you can find independent, reliable sources that provide significant coverage of his life or career, then please bring them forward and I'll gladly change this to keep. TBH, he seems like the sort of person who ought to have such coverage but doesn't. GoldenRing (talk) 10:01, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
• Keep Subject is the author of a best selling book, a fact that appears to be reliably sourced. IMO this would seem to satisfy section 3 of WP:AUTHOR. Additional RS sources would be nice though. -Ad Orientem (talk) 11:45, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
• Keep for the reason given above by Ad Orientem. Eustachiusz (talk) 14:36, 30 May 2014 (UTC)