Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gina Barreca

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 keep. Enigma^msg 07:06, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gina Barreca

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP, with some advertorial overtones, of a writer and academic whose claims of notability are depending far too strongly on primary sources (her own writing about herself or other things, the websites of directly affiliated organizations, etc.) with very little evidence of reliable source coverage about her shown at all. As always, a writer does not get over WP:GNG by being the bylined author of all or even most of her article's sources -- she gets over GNG by being the subject of media coverage. Even the glowing review quotes (which are not a basis for notability in and of themselves) are referenced not to any media coverage of those quotes being spoken, but solely to her own self-published PR profile on the website of a conference she spoke at. Writers are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they and their work exist, but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to be referenced much, much better than this is for a Wikipedia article to become earned. Bearcat (talk) 15:32, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:38, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:38, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:38, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:38, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think that there is enough coverage out there to meet WP:GNG. Here is one example that I found without too much trouble where she is the subject of a Chicago Tribune article. Her named/distinguished professorship at UConn would generally also meet WP:PROF; she’s not listed on the UConn Board of Trustees Distinguished Professor page yet, but I found a letter online indicating that she has been recommended for it in the last few days. EricEnfermero (Talk) 21:20, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Was this the letter you had in mind? I figure there'll be a news release from the university soon enough. XOR'easter (talk) 19:28, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes - thanks for adding that and thanks to David Eppstein for adding this entry to the deletion sorting category for academics and educators. I’d planned to do both one I got home and wasn’t working from a mobile device, but I forgot about it. EricEnfermero (Talk) 21:16, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:42, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Enough highly cited works to pass WP:Prof and WP:Author. Also Distinguished Professorship (provided sources are ratified). Xxanthippe (talk) 22:52, 8 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. I found enough prominently-published reviews of her books to convince me of a pass of WP:AUTHOR. And if we can document the distinguished professorship she would also clearly pass WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:57, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I believe her widely-covered books and nationally syndicated weekly column make her suitable for WP:AUTHOR. She was officially given distinguished professorship Sunday May 6, and added to the Board of Trustees earlier this year which surely qualifies her for WP:PROF. In response to her not being "covered" in media, she was on Oprah, will look for the link. —Dylan Smith (talk) 15:17, 10 May 2018 (ET)
Keep: meets WP:NAUTHOR. Sufficient 3rd party reviews of her books. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:21, 12 May 2018 (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.