Deletion of Joan Acocella bibliography

Comment: does not meet  for the reason given above, as no improvement to the article ie. sources showing notablity has been made
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:LISTN)

Comment: Wikipedia is  a CV. We don't include every publication for every academic we have an article for. The guidelines for what to include aren't as clear as they could be, but especially if we're talking about spinning off to a separate article in order to include ''everything'', there really needs to be a degree of importance for the author or publications that would allow a bibliography to satisfy our notability criteria on its own. For example, there are reliable secondary sources about the collective oeuvre of, say, Kurt Vonnegut or Emily Dickinson, and there are published bibliographies on major subjects in scholarly works. That's the sort of thing we would need for notability, and it just doesn't exist for most subjects (even notable subjects). &mdash
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: fails , and as per numerous delete rationale's above
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:LISTN)

Comment: If there are fewer than 10 works attributable to the author, they should be included in a bibliography or list of works section within the main article." (from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Bibliographies#Author_bibliographies) does not necessarily mean that if an author has over 10 works than they should have an article, notability guidelines still apply ie.  - "Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources", at present the article does not show this
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:LISTN)