Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cecilia Velástegui
=[[Cecilia Velástegui]]=
:{{la|Cecilia Velástegui}} – (
:({{Find sources|Cecilia Velástegui}})
I discovered this page through one of the entries for a recent book she wrote and redirected the entry to her page. I initially thought that she passed notability guidelines, but a closer look revealed that almost all of the sources on the page are unreliable. Most of these are the same types of sources that were on the articles for her books. A rundown of the sources are as follows:
::#[http://www.readerviews.com/InterviewVelastegui.html] ReaderViews is pretty much a non-notable book blog for all practical purposes and cannot be seen as a reliable source. This site was heavily linked to in all of the articles, especially to their reviews, which are all done by volunteers.
::#[http://insidescooplive.com/author-pages/Velastegui-Cecilia_Traces_Of_Bliss.html] Non-notable and non-reliable news site. Anyone can approach them for an interview, so this seems more like a PR site than anything else.
::#[http://www.ceciliavelastegui.com/] This is one of several official websites run by Velástegui, and as such, is primary at best.
::#[https://www.forewordreviews.com/reviews/gathering-the-indigo-maidens/] This is slightly more discerning than ReaderViews, but still has the problem of being non-usable as a RS.
::#[https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/cecilia-velastegui2/traces-of-bliss/] This is one of several reviews done through Kirkus Indie. The difference between this and the regular Kirkus Reviews site is that authors and/or publishers pay for KI to review their works. This makes any review from that site unusable as a reliable source.
::#[http://www.theusreview.com/reviews/Missing-Velastegui.html#.UTXBn6Kcdqw] Non-notable review blog.
::#[http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/20/idUS198997+20-Sep-2011+MW20110920] Press release, making it primary at best.
:I did a search and was unable to find anything to back up claims of notability. She won an award, but the award doesn't appear to be so notable that we'd keep her based on that win alone. I'm not trying to disparage the award, but I'm doubtful as to how notable in general it is considered to be. On several of the articles it's mentioned that it was "nominated" for several awards, all of which are the type of awards where anyone with a spare copy of the book and some postage stamps can submit an entry. I'm aware that several notable awards use this process (notably the Stoker Award), but this decreases the importance of a nomination substantially. It also claims notability for being chosen as a book group focus, but that's not really something that gives notability. It might if it was the Oprah Book Club, but that's still not a guarantee of notability in that situation. I did some editing to diminish some of the puffery in the article and I note where the original editor uploaded a bunch of copyvio, but I do think that this was created in good faith. It's promotional, but I think that this is just the case of a new editor. Regardless, this person is not notable and has received no coverage in English or Spanish language sources that I could find. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:03, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:07, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
:Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:07, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletion discussions. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:07, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
- weak Delete all her books have scattered holdings in Worldcat in Spanish and English, but they won't be representative for this particular niche. My book review sources also don't work well here. On balance, I'm saying delete on the basis of it being a highly promotional article--if the author were clearly important it would be worth rewriting; if the article had not so clearly had a promotional intent, I would look harder. DGG ( talk ) 05:05, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
- I edited the article so I can respond to some of the initial concerns of notoriety. The International Latino Book Awards is a distinguished award. The majority of authors nominated have Wikipedia pages including all in the category Cecilia won: [http://contacto-latino.com/redzin/558668/international-latino-book-awards-2012-winners-announced/]
I've reviewed several author pages and see many of a similar age and level of acclaim that were nominated for an ILBA award: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergio_Troncoso]
I am a first time editor and I should have removed the promotional content. I'm happy to rewrite further. Would the removal of promotional content and better adherence to Wiki guidelines provide a better chance of inclusion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ktbunch (talk • contribs) 02:23, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
:*It would help it get taken more seriously, but it doesn't really address the issues of notability. I'm willing to compromise on the awards and say that they could help contribute towards notability, but they don't seem to be enough to show notability for those alone. That's the biggest issue here: we have a lack of coverage overall. If we had a few more reliable sources then it could be a different story, but she seems to have been somewhat overlooked by the sources that Wikipedia would consider usable. It's a fairly common problem with indie and foreign authors as a whole, especially for people who fall into both categories, but one that still needs to be overcome to pass notability guidelines. What I can suggest is maybe moving this into your userspace so you can keep polishing it and looking for sources? (WP:USERFY) What this means is that you'd have it in your personal userspace and while it wouldn't be visible from the main Wikipedia website, this would give you more time to work on it as there would be no immediate fear of deletion from your userspace. If you have any questions about this, feel free to ask me on my talk page. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:15, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
::*By the by, the existence of other articles on Wikipedia doesn't really mean that the award is seen as big or notable enough to pass notability guidelines on that aspect alone. It might just mean that those pages haven't been noticed and listed for deletion. I don't mean this as a slur against the awards, but most awards aren't notable enough to show notability enough for that award alone. The awards that usually show that level of notability would be something along the lines of an Oscar, the Pulitzer, or a Newberry Medal. Even then you have people who sometimes argue the point on those, if the award was received in a team or in a smaller and more obscure field of the awards ceremony. Navigating what is and isn't usable and what does or doesn't show notability can be confusing, to say the least.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:19, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NativeForeigner Talk 22:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- Delete per the comprehensive nomination. There are quite a few PR mentions of this author, and some self published sources, but nothing that I could find from any reliable sources that discuss the subject in any depth. - MrX 00:28, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- Delete. Advertisement. Even minor authors get media coverage in some corner somewhere, so if all you have to cite a press release, then that tells me this author is not notable. Gamaliel (talk) 02:07, 20 March 2013 (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.