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. -- Cirt (talk) 22:42, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marnie Winston-Macauley

[edit]

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

Not notable; appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:GNG badly. Yes, she gets a lot of GBooks and GNews hits, but those are by her, not about her, and thus do not satisfy the guidelines. Article claims she was nominated for an Emmy and a WGA Award for her writing, but this isn't true; she was a member of a large writing team that was nominated for a Daytime Emmy, and I can't find anything on the supposed WGA nomination. Article contains one reference, a marriage announcement, which is obviously routine and does not confer notability. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:55, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that, going by the username of the article creator, it was written as a promotional piece by the subject's son. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:55, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Here's a source about the book by Marnie Winston-Macauley “Yiddishe Mamas:” The Truth about the Jewish Mother by Shayna Sheinfeld, McGill University, Montreal. It was published in Women in Judaism: A Multidisciplinary Journal. I am sure more sources could be found, and of course Marnie Winston-Macauley is notable enough to have her own article on Wikipedia. The article should be improved, not deleted.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:10, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
More sources:

The latter would not be significant even if it were independent, which it isn't - it's her employer announcing that she's been hired. The former is a fluff piece on "Valentine's Day Do's and Don'ts," not coverage of Winston-Macauley. The fact that these are the best sources you can find only confirms that she is not notable. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:59, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what you're trying to show me with that last link. Also, would it kill you to thread your comments normally so people can actually follow the conversation? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:15, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Of course she is notable" is a claim, not an argument. You must find sources to prove notability, not just claim that notability is out there somewhere. Do you have any more sources? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Putting this here because this conversation is fast becoming impossible to follow: Mbz1 has found two sources. Both are reviews of the same book, which appears to have been reviewed in no mainstream publications. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:15, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. The "cite" to the New York Times in the article is simply a wedding announcement of a couple of lines, nothing more. She's written some chatty advice books, and had or has an advice column, but utterly fails WP:AUTHOR. Not notable; article is an obvious "tribute piece" by a relative, and should be deleted and salted. – OhioStandard (talk) 08:45, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The most prominent claim to notability here is that the subject was allegedly nominated for a Daytime Emmy in 1993 as a member of the writing team for As the World Turns. However, the book The Emmys by Thomas O'Neil does not list her among the writing team for that show which was nominated in that year. Nor is she listed as such in the Internet Movie Database -- in fact, she doesn't even have an IMDb entry. For all I know, maybe she was nominated for a Daytime Emmy in some other year or some other category, but if this article is wrong about this significant point, I'm not sure we can rely on it to be accurate about other matters. The article is barely referenced at all anyway, thus making it difficult to confirm the information therein. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:37, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources proffered are highly misleading. There is no notability here, nothing to satisfy WP:BK or WP:AUTHOR or WP:CREATIVE, etc. Qworty (talk) 09:04, 17 May 2011 (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.