Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chelsea Fine

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. (Soft delete, minding low participation.) czar ⨹ 21:53, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chelsea Fine[edit]

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

Does not appear to have met the notability threshold outlined at WP:AUTHOR, as her most notable work (Anew novel) itself does not appear notable, and most press received is from her website or from non-notable blogs. —Eustress 17:56, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (spiel) @ 21:51, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (push) @ 21:07, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All metrics indicate she sells a lot of books, more than typical for authors that show up at AfD. Unfortunately I can't translate that into concrete evidence of notability because the reviews, as noted by the nom, are from blogs. It looks like a case of someone who needs a good publisher, on the threshold of mainstream recognition but still in the fan supported phase. -- GreenC 15:16, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've removed all of the non-usable blog sources, which pretty much decimated the article to a stub. None of the awards are notable enough to give notability and it also doesn't help that ForeWard Reviews is very much the epitome of a vanity award publication. If anyone is curious about the original state of the article, they can find it here. I am finding some actual usable sources, so that's why I wanted to clean out the non-usable sources - I didn't want any confusion over what could or couldn't be a RS. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:50, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Search hits started somewhat promisingly with a hit from USA Today, but upon looking at the source I found that it was actually an article written by Fine and not about Fine. I'd thought that there were some non-blog reviews out there, but those didn't surface like I thought they would. Unfortunately this is one of those cases where someone is popular, but that popularity never translated into coverage in reliable sources, which is ultimately what we need to show notability. I'd also argue that the original state of the article is pretty much why most people argue that COI/paid editors should not create pages outside of AfC (as the username implies that they are a marketing company), as the article was almost completely sourced by primary and non-usable blog sources. The only usable source is the Valley Lifestyles magazine article- the other two I just left on there to source the awards, neither of which are actually the type that would give notability because one is from a vanity review website (ForeWard will give awards but then charge the authors for the ability to put the award stickers on their books, plus they run a pay review wing) and the other is from a convention that would be considered non-notable as far as Wikipedia's guidelines are considered. (Although it does seem amazing.) I just can't see where Fine currently passes Wikipedia's notability guidelines at this point in time. She's popular enough in the blogosphere, but being popular just isn't enough on here. (WP:ITSPOPULAR) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:07, 31 December 2014 (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.