Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amy Lane

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 delete all. Wizardman 21:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Amy Lane

Amy Lane (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)
Vulnerable: The First Book of the Little Goddess Series (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Wounded: The Second Book of the Little Goddess Series (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Bound: The Third Book of the Little Goddess Series (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Bitter Moon I: Triane's Son Ascending (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - Related articles added by Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 00:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Non-notable writer who has paid notorious vanity-press iUniverse to print four non-notable books. She fails WP:BIO, while each of the four books fails WP:BK, as there are no WP:RS to establish notability for any of them. The WP:single-purpose account that created this article also created four articles for the non-notable books. Google throws up nothing but blogs and sales portals such as Amazon--and please note that Amazon and BN listings do not establish notability, as any vanity-press author can have titles listed on those services. Wikipedia is really getting taken for a ride on this one, and all five related articles should be deleted, since we are not an advertising platform for non-notable vanity merchandise. Qworty (talk) 00:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete all The author is absolutely not notable per WP:BIO, and her books fail WP:BK quite easily. I added the books to this AFD to ensure that their pages get deleted too. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 00:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep First of all, the account that created these articles is not a single-purpose account. I have been a contributor since November 2004. Not as active as you, certainly, and not as knowledgeable about Wikipedia policies, but I am not trying to take anyone for a ride. Next, I concede that the books are self-published. Does that automatically exclude an author from Wikipedia? Vulnerable has sold over 1000 copies and is ranked #31 in its category at Amazon (Books > Science Fiction & Fantasy > Fantasy > Fairies & Elves). I think that's pretty notable. Jbergerot (talk) 03:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. In terms of Wikipedia notability, Amazon and BN.com don't mean anything, because any vanity-press author in the world, such as "Amy Lane," can arrange to have vanity books listed there. Also, authors can manipulate Amazon rankings through bulk ordering. Much the same holds true for libraries--any vanity-press "author" can donate copies to a few libraries. In order to understand some of the relevant policies, please read WP:BIO, WP:RS, and WP:BK. The fact of the matter is that this woman and her books do not meet the notability guidelines for inclusion in Wikipedia. As for the issues of WP:single-purpose account, while it is true that other types of edits were made early on, lately the account in question has been going on an orgy of "Amy Lane" promotion, creating the non-notable "Amy Lane" article, creating four extensive articles (complete with spam links) for all four of the non-notable vanity-press books, and then, if that weren't enough, spamming wikilinks to "Amy Lane" onto many other WP articles. All of this adds up to one thing: WP:SPAM. So when I say WP is being taken for a ride here, that is what I am referring to, and a permanent ban for spam is probably in order. Finally, it should be noted that while the account in questions has, from time to time, made non-"Amy Lane" edits, many of those edits concern the exact geographic location where "Amy Lane" is purported to live. Hmmm... Qworty (talk) 04:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I realize you deal with a lot of spam here and it is probably difficult for you to accept that I posted these articles in good faith. Obviously we disagree about the notability issue. I believe that the wikilinks were all appropriate to the articles, assuming the articles themselves were acceptable (which, I understand, you say they were not). The geographical edits you refer to were on the Natomas page, which is where I live. (Amy Lane lives in a nearby town called Citrus Heights, a page which I have not edited.) Is it inappropriate for me to edit the page for the town where I live? This kind of attack will drive away inexperienced but well-meaning contributors. Or, perhaps that is what you have in mind? Jbergerot (talk) 05:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete unless evidence of notability is added. Otherwise, I'm inclined to agree with the non-notability argument. CapitalSasha ~ talk 05:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails WP:N. Five Years 05:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per notability requirements. Jbergerot doesn't look like a single purpose account but, probably should have look at the policies and guidelines again as a very infrequent user and things around here most likely have changed. The authors contributions to their hometown should be ignored and the articles up for deletion should be discussed on their own merits. Unfortunately, all the articles seem to fail notability and verifiability. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails notability guidelines every way that you look at it. SPA or not, the material simply isn't notable, and I don't think that should really have any bearing on what we do with it, since anyone can edit it if they feel so inclined. Celarnor Talk to me 00:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails the notability requirements specified at the notability policy page. The last four also fail WP:BK. Razorflame 18:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


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.