Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sage Vivant

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 No consensus. Cbrown1023 talk 03:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sage Vivant

Sage Vivant (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View log)

• Delete Does not seem to meet WP:BIO standards of notability. Blogger and author of a few non-notable books, none of which are within the top 1,000,000 books on amazon, with no evidence of reviews or articles independent of author. First link seems to point to advertisement for erotica writing service. Editor who created this page no longer has a userpage, and links to other wikipedia articles point to uncreated (or deleted) pages. zadignose 16:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
• A Counterpoint was presented on the article's the article's talk page. It appears that some of the story anthologies edited by Sage Vivant are within the top 1,000,000 Amazon sales (though not very high), and some web reviews of these anthologies exist on a site dedicated to erotic fiction. So, the reliability and independence of these citations should be considered. Reference to other media mentions was made, though it is not clear that Sage herself has ever been the subject of an independent review or article, and the majority of citations listed do appear to be mere "mentions," possibly trivial in nature.) In any event, I guess some of her editing projects have gotten more mention that I at first supposed, so this could be a borderline case.zadignose 05:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 01:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, doesn't look borderline to me. I see no reason to believe this person even passes any of the "probably" criteria in WP:BIO, let alone WP:N. Seraphimblade 11:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless properly sourced and referenced by end of this AfD Alf photoman 15:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The info is factual, and biographical in nature. The facts are citable. (If not currently cited to someone's satisfaction, that is a Cleanup issue, not a reason for Deletion.) There is no copyright issues with the article. The author is well published in her field, and involved in many related endeavors, which may be of interest to the general community. Also, by comparison, articles on other authors of similar stature and genre (M. Christiansen, Violet Blue, and the like) are not recommended for deletion. Notability issues: highly subjective, as Wiki policy states. However, there is no case that their are objectivity issues with the content. User:dan13732
• Keep. As per above. Comparable to other authors in that genre and market deemed notable. Vassyana 11:46, 1 February 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.