FANDOM


Lynn Messina

Lynn Messina (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log • Stats)
(Find sources: "Lynn Messina"news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Non-notable author. Only claim to fame appears to be the novel Fashionstas which is claimed (without citation given nor any to be found) to be a national bestseller, and which was optioned by a producer in 2004, but never developed into a film. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:30, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment. I'm looking for sources, but if I can't find any then it might be worthwhile to create an article for Fashionistas and then use her name as a redirect if that ends up being the only thing she's notable for. I'm finding that there should be reviews for the book out there, so if all else fails then that could be a potential outcome.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 18:47, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment Fashionistas doesn't appear that notable in itself. Claims that it is a bestseller can't be verified, and the movie deal is eight years old, but has gone nowhere. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:26, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
PS It should be noted that the article was created by an editor who appears to be a "Wikipedian for hire": he has created 15 articles in a single day, and they all have been speedily deleted, tagged for speedy deletion, or nominated for deletion at AFD. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:28, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. Be that as it may, if I can find reviews and coverage in reliable sources to show that the book received attention, it'd still pass WP:NBOOK if we have enough RS. I'm finding quite a bit of attention for the book in the Google news archives, so I'm leaning towards creating an article for the book, deleting the author's page, and using it as a redirect to the Fashionistas novel's article. She's done other works, but none of those appear to be notable enough for an article. The thing about the articles/subjects that the Wiki-for-pay authors create is that if they are notable or have something notable about them, that the subject was originally created in a semi-sleazy manner is sort of irrelevant. It just means that it'd have to be properly sourced and edited for any promotional tone. (Can you tell I hate the wiki-for-pay editors?) Hopefully the WFP editor has been blocked or is at least being watched by the admins, though.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:11, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep per reviews[1][2][3][4][5] and other mentions[6][7][8][9][10][11][12] She's written a number of books that have received press attention, particularly Fashionistas and Little Vampire Women. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:15, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Here's a question though- if I were to make an article focusing on Fashionistas, could we use the same sources in both articles? I've not really read anything that says we can't, but I've always leaned towards putting everything in the same article if I had to use the same sources to RS different articles. (In other words, I didn't have enough RS to put different ones in each article.) If we can't or if it's discouraged, would there be enough RS for Messina's article if I were to create a Fashionistas article or would it be better to just have the one article with a ton of sources?Tokyogirl79 (talk) 16:07, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. Can't anyone post anything they want on Publishers Weekly? If so, those refs don't mean a thing (and reek of puffery at any rate). I'm still looking, but I haven't seen anything that makes me think that either the author or the book is notable enough for inclusion. Heather (talk) 18:43, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
This article uses material from the Wikipedia article Articles for deletion/Lynn Messina, that was deleted or is being discussed for deletion, which is released under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Author(s): Heather Search for "Articles for deletion/Lynn Messina" on Google
View Wikipedia's deletion log of "Articles for deletion/Lynn Messina"
Wikipedia-logo-v2

Ad blocker interference detected!


Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers

Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.