Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MaryAnn Johanson

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. The single keep argument has been effectively refuted Kevin (talk) 21:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MaryAnn Johanson

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

Non-notable blogger who self-published a book through the LULU vanity press. All but one of the references are links to her work. The one real reference, to Time Magazine, consists of two sentences inside of a two page article, and it doesn't even mention Johanson by name.

talk) 16:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete As per the nom --President of Internets (talk) 17:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Who again? --Cleave and Smite, Delete and Tear! (talk) 19:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. Likely a vanity page. Bourne (talk) 08:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or possibly Rename to FlickFilosopher.com: Hear me out here. I'd never heard of her; I thought from the article she didn't sound notable; and I was all set to vote "Delete"... but decided to do a little searching first. Turns out her site, flickfilosopher.com, was listed as a reference or external link in a lot of Wikipedia articles. Well, OK, I thought, that doesn't mean anything; those references were probably added by the same person who wrote the article. But they weren't—those I checked out were all done by different users and IPs. Well, okay, so a number of different Wikipedians have used her site as a reference in articles; that in and of itself isn't enough to establish notability. But I figured it was enough to make it worth looking into... and after some Googling, I now think her site seems to be notable after all. I may not have heard of it before myself, but it's mentioned and linked all over the place. Now, granted, most online links aren't reliable sources, but the Time magazine mention listed in the article definitely qualifies (it doesn't mention her by name, granted, but it does mention her website by name), and she's also had significant mention in the Los Angeles Times, Newsday, USA Today, and several other respected newspapers... unfortunately, those last few links apparently require payment to see the full article, but just put "flickfilosopher" into a Google News Archive search and you'll see the references.

All that being said, she seems to be notable really only for her website—the fact that she self-published a book through Lulu is completely non-notable. So I could see the article being renamed to flickfilosopher.com (with "MaryAnn Johanson" as a redirect) instead of kept at her name. (After all, for instance, it is her website that Time mentions, not her directly.) Also, if the article is kept, it definitely needs a rewrite—the bit about her self-published book doesn't belong (unless someone can turn up some independent reliable sources referring specifically to the book), and that last paragraph about how she's "not afraid to pan popular and critically acclaimed movies" has got to go (or at least be reworded to not sound so fannish). Still, her website seems to be well known enough and to have garnered enough attention in reliable sources to merit a Wikipedia article. —Smeazel (talk) 23:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It also appears that Johanson also self-publishes her web site and is the sole contributor to its contents. The press citations mentioned by Smeazel are all in passing. Johanson and her site have never been the sole subject of important media coverage.

talk) 13:56, 29 October 2009 (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.