Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chelsea Vowel (2nd nomination)
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
- 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. Consensus to keep the page as there are enough sources available to meet WP:AUTHOR (non-admin closure) -- Dane talk 10:49, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
AfDs for this article:
- Chelsea Vowel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is a blogger whose content is sometimes used elsewhere. The Huffington post ref is simply a listing of her contributions and makes no claim to establishing notability. Two others are plugs for her book. I can't see any evidence of notability here. Fails WP:GNG Velella Velella Talk 20:31, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
- Delete not enough indepdent, 3rd party sources discussing her in detail to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:49, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. I'm exceedingly confused by the rationale behind this nomination. User:Velella's description of Vowel as 'a blogger whose content is sometimes used elsewhere' ignores her published book, and the maths around the references do not make sense. As Velella says, three of the sources do not necessarily establish notability - and they are neither intended to nor expected to, since the notability guideline requires only two reliable sources. Such sources are in the article; a CBC article is not a 'plug for her book' but a discussion of her and her work, in some detail, which is precisely the sort of reference the notability guideline accepts, as is the Eastern Door article (for r eference for those who may not know, the Eastern Door is the newspaper of record for the Mohawk people of the Haudenosaunee). The Kirkus Review source is a book review, very different from a plug, and entirely acceptable for an author. If interviews with authors and book reviews are 'plugs' you're going to have to delete an extremely large number of author biographies! I'm including a couple more reviews and interviews but really, I do not understand why this nomination was made - nor User:Johnpacklambert's rationale (exactly how many third-party sources are necessary, if two are insufficient?). Xuháska (talk) 05:16, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
- Xuháska I'm not certain where you get the idea that merely two sources are required as the guidelines clearly state "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected." Even if two was the magic number, it would still come down to quality and depth of coverage. The CBC source is an interview. Interviews are not automatically reliable sources and must be shown to be independent of the subject (which in this case is true), the source has editorial standards (does it promote the subject in a non-objective way? -- again, the CBC sources is fine for this), and whether the interview is in-depth and/or scholarly. It's a very short interview so that's up for debate. As for the review, the link seems to be broken so it's impossible to evaluate but critical reviews are fine as sources, but if that's the only source available that would indicate a lack of in-depth and widespread coverage. The nominator's rationale is not incorrect. There are three sources, with only two possibly being useful, but they both have problems. I'm not saying I believe this should be deleted but we can't just throw around assumed "rules" without examining what they actually say and how the sources may or may not satisfy policy and guidelines. freshacconci (✉) 17:33, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Freshacconci: where are there 3 sources? The article contains ten. I just picked out the best 3 as part of this discussion. For what it's worth, both review links work for me. Xuháska (talk) 05:04, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
- Xuháska I'm not certain where you get the idea that merely two sources are required as the guidelines clearly state "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected." Even if two was the magic number, it would still come down to quality and depth of coverage. The CBC source is an interview. Interviews are not automatically reliable sources and must be shown to be independent of the subject (which in this case is true), the source has editorial standards (does it promote the subject in a non-objective way? -- again, the CBC sources is fine for this), and whether the interview is in-depth and/or scholarly. It's a very short interview so that's up for debate. As for the review, the link seems to be broken so it's impossible to evaluate but critical reviews are fine as sources, but if that's the only source available that would indicate a lack of in-depth and widespread coverage. The nominator's rationale is not incorrect. There are three sources, with only two possibly being useful, but they both have problems. I'm not saying I believe this should be deleted but we can't just throw around assumed "rules" without examining what they actually say and how the sources may or may not satisfy policy and guidelines. freshacconci (✉) 17:33, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. I'd still like to see a couple more media sources if possible — the QWF award nomination, in particular, should be sourced to a media article rather than to the QWF's own press release of its shortlist — but CBC News, the Winnipeg Free Press, Kirkus Reviews and Eastern Door are all perfectly acceptable sources. Book reviews in reliable and well-established publications do count toward a writer's notability — amateur book reviews on blogs and GoodReads and Amazon wouldn't assist, but if reliable sources are publishing professional critical reviews of her work then notability is demonstrated by those reviews. Note, for the record, that I was the nominator of the WP:TOOSOON and entirely primary sourced first version — and I'm satisfied that this version has properly addressed the reasons why I listed the original iteration for AFD. Bearcat (talk) 15:48, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:48, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:49, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 03:43, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 03:43, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
- Keep – Meets WP:AUTHOR, because the subject's work has been reviewed in multiple independent sources: Kirkus Reviews, Winnipeg Free Press, The Millstone. There's also this source from CBC (8:07 radio presentation), which has some interview content, but also includes analysis of the subject's work. North America1000 08:22, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- 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.