Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Belén Fernández

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. Even without the disruption from what appears to be puppets of some sort, the arguments put forward for keep are not really based in any policy, and the deletion rationales, particularly of User:ScrapIronIV and User:MelanieN are persuasive. That said, and without singling anyone in particular out, the advice of "don't bite the newbies" is good advice that we should keep in mind, especially in processes like AFD. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:16, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Belén Fernández

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

No indication that Fernández is notable. No reliable sources dicsuss her in any detail. The article is heavily based on Fernández' own writings and on opinion pieces. Huon (talk) 19:14, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Agreed. Fernandez does not meet standards for notability. The majority of references to her work are from small-ish blogs/sites with only a small readership and part of a small circle of freelance journalist types. Moreover, the article was originally created by the subject's mother and earlier versions were thus slanted in the extreme towards self-promotion. More recent versions have been less obvious, but retain a focus on adding entirely unnecessary praise for her work, and adding only a single critique from Pamela Geller in a way clearly designed to discount it's importance. It is clear that Fernande'z mother (User: Tower 1109) cannot hold a neutral position on this article, and she continues to edit in spite of this. Even if her edits were entirely neutral/acceptable, the basis of the article and the reason for its creation is discredited by her connection (not merely close, the closest possible!). Indeed, elsewhere she has noted how she has contacted Fernandez herself vis-a-vis this page (getting a picture). I can't see any real reason for this to remain. Certainly there are other pages for journalists, but they tend to have achieved something particularly notable. This does not apply here. 93.185.230.67 (talk) 20:09, 24 June 2015 (UTC) Anon — 93.185.230.67 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 17:22, 26 June 2015 (UTC).[reply]

(refactored) Keep Subject is an upcoming journalist who is already listed in WikiProject Women writers and American woman journalists. An influential publishing house brought out her second book to considerable acclaim by renowned left-wing thinkers and writers (see delete history for specifics) and recommended by Truthout and Gawker. The book has been assigned in university courses. She analyzes regularly for influential alternative news outlet, including Al-Jazeera and Middle East Eye, among others.Please let us focus on whether subject is notable. Tower1109 (talk) 20:23, 24 June 2015 (UTC)— Tower1109 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Strong Delete Simply writing a book is not a criterion for notability, if it were then wikipedia would have far more pages! Generally speaking, journalists have wikipedia pages when they have achieved something especially notable- not simply criticising another journalist in a book. This would include, for instance, a particularly influential story. Alternatively, people like Friedman are considered notable because of their notoriety if you will. Neither applies in this case. Moreover: please stop trying to distract from the fact that you are the mother of the subject of this article. It is not a minor issue, it is a massive one. Your continued efforts to maintain this page damage wikipedia's efforts towards neutrality. Moreover, the fact that you won't let this discussion go on without you shows the degree to which you cannot be trusted to be neutral. If are truly sure of your position (subject is notable, etc.) then please stop engaging in the debate- because you are mudding it with biased opinions- and hope that other people agree with your perspective. Also, 'second book' is misleading; first book was self-published. 93.185.230.67 (talk) 20:54, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Does not meet notability guidelinesfor either a journalist or author. Article is dependent upon questionable - and even biased - sources. Many are simply opinion pieces and blogs. There is a clear conflict of interest with the main contributor to this article, an editor who has made no other contributions to the encyclopedia. Scr★pIron^IV 21:16, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(refactored) ~~Strong Keep~~ After hours of more reading up on Wiki standards and protocols, I remain convinced that the subject meets WP:Basic: "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published[4] secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[5] and independent of the subject.[6]". Subject's work has been lauded by a number of sources and cited as exemplary journalism; some are referenced in the page, others were deleted to accommodate critiques of "self-promotion." Please see history of edits. As for the "editor who has made no other contributions to the encyclopedia," let us heed the the standard of "please don't bite the newbie." Tower1109 (talk) 15:05, 25 June 2015 (UTC) — Tower1109 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

@Tower1109: You can only !vote once per discussion. Mkdw ^talk 17:24, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete As per wikipedia cited above, this article contains principally only blog links, opinion pieces, and/or lower quality platforms for reference material. Tower 1109 should note the wording of the notability criteria: 'reliable' (blogs/opinion pieces/niche leftists sites are not reliable per se) and 'intellectually independent' (the only sources here are from a small group of left-wing leaning sites/bloggers/etc. that are naturally inclined to cite this kind of material occasionally), as well as 'independent of the subject' (many of these sites have connections with the author in one way or another). There is no evidence of real notability- simply one commercially published book. Please note, again, that Tower1109 is the mother of the subject of the article (note her language: "subject's work has been *lauded*" and other similar biases in her edits. It is relevant that the only page she has edited on wikipedia refers to her daughter. — 146.185.34.131 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 17:24, 26 June 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Requesting review by Wikipedia administrators of potential sock puppetry WP:SOCK by the only three unsigned users who are editing this page and arguing for its deletion; 141.138.186.38, 93.185.224.196, and 146.185.36.67. All three have IP addresses from Beirut Lebanon and they all use the same tone, language, and arguments. The first 2 addresses have made no other contributions to Wikipedia besides their arguments against the page; the third has contributed to Path Solutions, which has been flagged as an orphan page and overly promotional. Tower1109 (talk) 15:06, 26 June 2015 (UTC) — Tower1109 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I have placed {{Not a ballot}} at the top of the discussion. I believe the reviewing administrator for this discussion will take these points into consideration. That being said, AFD discussions are not a ballot and the outcome is not based upon popular vote but rather policy based arguments. Mkdw ^talk 17:28, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note The participants of this discussion were unfamiliar with the format in how to sign their comments. I have refactored the discussion for readability and moved their signatures to the end of their comments as per common practice. Mkdw ^talk 17:24, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:35, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete 4/5 support deletion (consensus?). 1 against, with COI. No sources to meet notability standard. 195.132.22.11 (talk) 16:07, 7 July 2015 (UTC)— 195.132.22.11 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. She has written a non-notable book (i.e., a book which has not been written about by independent reliable sources) and has done journalistic writing for various publications. But her own writing does not make her notable. There does not appear to be any writing ABOUT her, as required for WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. --MelanieN (talk) 23:27, 12 July 2015 (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.