Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeanne Marie Spicuzza

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 --Steve _(Stephen) ^talk 09:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jeanne Marie Spicuzza

Jeanne Marie Spicuzza (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Subject of article does not meet Wikipedia's guidelines for notability. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep. Decent enough sources, and plenty of noteworthy GHits -- seems marginally notable to me. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 02:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. A whole lot of air inflating very little. Lots of name-dropping, very little reason for that. --Calton | Talk 02:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete, an accomplished poet/performance artist, but not especially notable from a search of Google News Archive (a couple of reviews in the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, some listings for poetry readings in D.C. and Texas). Her book is on Google Books, but that's about it. Accomplishment is not notability. This could possibly be source--Dhartung | Talk 04:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete This individual appears only in her own productions, according to IMDB. No independent evidence of notability. Article is almost certainly autobiography. Guy (Help!) 08:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Apart fomr the lack of evidence of independent non-trivial coverage, everything I can find which is writte, published or performed by Spicuzza is either a free download or published by one of the branches of her own company, and I can't find any evidence of any significant body of work by anyone else published through the same source. As far as I can tell, this is entirely self-publication. Guy (Help!) 08:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Article asserts notability and sources confirm it. Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel ranks 39 in top 100 largest U.S. newspapers, hardly "indie" or "non-trivial." 'Poetry Motel' is a respected publication, and none listed are vanity presses. Sourced in international riotgrrrl publications. Ani DiFranco uses her own label, as does Kat Bjelland, etc., so doesn't make a good argument. Btw, seems one user voted twice. Looks like a lot of 40 year-old virgins out for blood. Hope to see some more fem, impartial and/or non-SPP votes. Telogen 08:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Lose the schoolyard insults, Telogen, or whatever you're calling yourself today. And for the closing admin, if you haven't seen them already, this link and this link should be educational. --Calton | Talk 13:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey now, Calton, that's like biting the hand that feeds you. Telogen 06:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

To make it clearer, Telogen has edited the article both under that name and as various anon IPs, and is either Spicuzza herself or someone closely connected with her. The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel article isn't cited properly, but is linked in the article through a findarticles link (currently footnote #2). However, that's only one article independent of the subject, so I don't think it establishes notability by itself. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

To make it even clearer, that's totally untrue. Testify. Interesting though, maybe you're the one connected to Spicuzza, bearing some grudge. Possible, because admin Guy suddenly appeared, first cancelled out one contributor's edits on Mouth of Truth then inappropriately "nuked", as he put it to Calton, Spicuzza-related article. Defends Calton on AN/I. At the same time, Vandalism springs up on Roman Catholicism, Pope John Paul II Sicily surrounding "Mafia," which mocked Spicuzza's bio, and Hildegard von Bingen, all links on Spicuzza article. Very interesting indeed. Telogen 06:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as per Dhartung and JzG; accomplishment != notability, and she seems to be largely self-published with little independent coverage. --MCB 18:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. This is a poorly written, self-serving article about somebody who isn't worthy of being in an encyclopedia of any kind. Griot 18:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

And here we have Griot, the instigator, who was embarrassed and angry at being outnumbered by a bunch of editors on the Ralph Nader article. In all his spite, Griot, SPPs, failed to pick up any current copy of Who's Who, including Who's Who in the World, which carry articles on Spicuzza. Telogen 06:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure they do. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• weak delete While I agree with Ten Pound Hammer, this article needs major cleaup and removal of all the fluff. Then, I don't think there is really any substance. I'm not seeing WP:bio, given the lack of strong sources. In other words, many of the sources referenced are unacceptable. —Gaff ^ταλκ 22:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep I wish we could zap it for the likely autobio issue, but it just about scrapes through on notability. Adrian M. H. 22:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, notable and backed with sources. The only problem is the tone and format of the article, which can be fixed. *Cremepuff222* 23:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Ironically, if the article had not been so frequently edited by individuals with clear associations with Ms. Spicuzza and thus clear conflicts of interest, I might have abstained or voted to keep. But the evidence for notability is marginal and all the sockpuppet/meatpuppet activity makes even that marginal amount so suspect that it falls back under the notability line. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, my sympathies with Antaeus Feldspar, appears he got hurt. Still, all the SPP/COI accusations are getting a little tired. It's easier to find the mob in the person, than the person in the mob. Okay, that's all folks, I got a party to get to. And now, back to your local lynchings... Telogen 06:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per Guy. Sarah 06:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Riot Grrrls rock. Solid article. 76.166.123.129 08:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

76.166.123.129 is a sockpuppet of User:Telogen. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Arbustoo 17:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. feydey 19:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Simply not notable enough. --Crunch 01:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I think it's fair to take points off for manipulation of the actual AfD: double voting, as discussed in a thread today at WP:AN/I (search for Spicuzza). See checkuser report and the actual second vote in this AfD. (The first was by User:Telogen). The subject could be marginally notable but the self-promotion and policy violations are overwhelming. I wouldn't be against re-creation of a neutral, balanced and well-sourced article. History does not give us much hope that the subject herself will be able to do that. EdJohnston 16:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete nn. JJL 19:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - fails to have multiple independent reliable sources. -- Whpq 16:42, 23 May 2007 (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.