Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dianne de Las Casas

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. King Jakob C2 01:31, 21 June 2013 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Dianne de Las Casas[edit]

Dianne de Las Casas (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)

I came across this article after seeing an AfD for her daughter, Kid Chef Eliana. I'd looked at her mother's article with the idea of merging the daughter's article with the mother's, but saw a huge amount of puffery going on in the article along with serious linkspam. These were the same issues I saw with the daughter's article and a search didn't bring up much that would show that Dianne de Las Casas merits an article herself. The article in its original state ([1]) claims that she'd had multiple reviews and awards, but I'm not able to find any such awards, at least not any that would give notability. I can't seem to find a plethora of reviews either. I found two articles and one review, but that's not enough to give notability- especially since one of the articles was written by a small local paper. There just isn't enough here to give notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:46, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: The awards are now listed, but none of them are the type that would give notability. The ones from Storytelling World (including the win) and the ones from the "Children's Music Web Awards" just aren't really that big of an award as far as Wikipedia goes. Most awards are considered to be non-notable as far as Wikipedia goes. It doesn't mean that someone didn't work hard, just that the award isn't considered notable. Out of all of the awards out there for any subject (including things such as the Oscars and Heismann Trophy), I'd say that only 5% of them are big enough that they would extend notability. Of those 5%, less than 1% give the type of notability that would merit a keep on that basis alone. The NAPPA honor award would help give notability, but I can't find any record of her having received it. The website for NAPPA brings up nothing as far as her name goes or the name of the product (Jump, Jiggle & Jam) that supposedly won the award. I found a mention on parenthood.com, but none on the actual contest website. This award isn't the type that would keep an article on this basis, though. As far as the one for Gambit Weekly goes, that's an award given out by a local magazine. It might count as a RS, but the award also isn't notable enough to really give notability. There is a mention on Oprah.com goes, that doesn't mention de Las Casas at all. When you get down to it, the sources are primarily local (Hanford Sentinel, Gambit magazine) and other than a few trade reviews (Kirkus, School Library Journal, ForeWord Reviews), the sources are pretty paltry. Teacher Librarian and the SLJ interview are the only two that are immediately usable. I'm hesitant about the textbook as we have no way of verifying what the actual content is. I did find where she's listed in the book in the table of contents, but we can't really see what the article really says. Is it an article about her? By her? Is the book just a listing of various people ala an encyclopedia or is it more in-depth? Was it all taken directly from her (not quite like a press release, but along those lines). I'm a little leery when you consider that this didn't come up as a source in JSTOR or Google Scholar and there's no way to verify the content in any way. Salem Press is considered to be an academic publisher, but again- I'm leery about anything that I can't verify at least partially content-wise. The coverage here is just so light and not easily verified when you get down to it. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:44, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I did a search on the editor name that's creating these articles and found evidence to suggest that the editor is indeed Dianne de Las Casas. I've left a note on her page cautioning her against creating and editing articles about herself and her daughter (if this is her), as this can be seen as self-promotion.
  • Delete After doing some searches I'm inclined to agree with Tokyogirl79. There are some event notices out there for storytelling sessions etc., some brief book reviews (one rather negative in "Teacher Librarian" 2011), but nothing that approaches WP:AUTHOR notability. AllyD (talk) 05:56, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 07:11, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 07:11, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawing: The claim of notability here is small- very small. I think that a case for deletion can be argued, but not at the expense of other articles here on Wikipedia that have similar sourcing issues. Odds are high that in a year or two this article could still be deleted due to a lack of notability, but I'll bite the bullet on this one in the hopes of saving other articles with a borderline notability. I am still very, VERY concerned about the high conflict of interest/spam issues here, given that it's almost completely certain that DLCstory is Dianne de Las Casas herself and I'm very uncomfortable with the fact that given the initial state of the articles, her reason for being here is to promote herself and her daughter. In the hopes that she'll read this, I'd like to caution her against editing her and her daughter's articles directly and would recommend that she go through the talk pages instead. I'd also like her to check out WP:RS and WP:EL to see what is usable as a RS and what is and isn't considered to be WP:LINKSPAM when it comes to external links. Here's a rundown of the sources for anyone coming into this that's wondering why I'm withdrawing this. Essentially there are *just* enough articles in peer-reviewed journals to merit a keep, albeit a tentative one.
Sources

Debatable[edit]

  1. [2] This is a small, local paper in Hanford, California. DdLC was a resident of LeMoore and as such this can be seen as local coverage. It also seems to be a notification of an event.
  2. Great Lives in History: Asian and Pacific Islander Americans: This one I'd argue is debatable mostly because we have no way of knowing the actual content for the reasons I stated above. We have no way of knowing if it's an article by her, of her, or an article based upon press releases.
  3. [3] I'll agree that a NAPPA award can give notability. I'm leery about this not being from the actual award page though, especially considering that a search on the NAPPA site doesn't bring her up at all. This is also an award on the state level and not the national level, so there's a bit of uncertainty as far as that goes.
  4. ForeWord review. FW is a trade. These still count in the very, very technical sense when it comes to notability, although these have become greatly depreciated when it comes down to RS and keeping an article. They haven't become invalid as a RS, although that's just a matter of when and not if.
  5. [4] Kirkus is another trade review, same concerns. KR is one of those trades that has become even more depreciated than the other trades, as they've come under fire for their review practices.
  6. [5] Another Kirkus review.
  7. [6] School Library Journal. While the interview is good, this still runs the issue of trade reviews.
  8. [7] Booklist, same issues as a trade review.
  9. [8] This is the Midwest Book Review. It's considered a trade and a dubious one at that. I've heard more editors on Wikipedia voice concerns over their reviews and more than one person has considered them to be outright unusable. One of the chief concerns is that they're considered to be a positive review factory, among other things. However there's no outright consensus on this trade, so it could still technically be considered usable.

Usable[edit]

  1. [9] This is one of the few usable ones in the article. It's a lengthy interview with the SLJ.
  2. Voices: The Journal of New York Folklore. This is a peer-reviewed journal, so it can be usable for notability regardless of the length.
  3. Teacher Librarian. Another peer-reviewed journal.

Unusable[edit]

  1. [10], [11], [12] Ultimately this award isn't considered to really give notability in the slightest as far as Wikipedia goes.
  2. [13] This Oprah.com article only briefly mentions the reading month and doesn't mention DdLC at all.
  3. [14] Barnes & Nobles isn't usable as a RS and the review on the article is the SLJ review that was already linked. (I removed this and the Oprah link.)
Ultimately there's really only three sources that I'd consider to be out and out usable, however there's enough dubious sources that I'm willing to withdraw at this point. Again, this is mostly out of concern for the other articles that could be deleted if this one is. This "win" would be a greater loss for Wikipedia as a whole when it comes to sourcing notability for other authors. I still greatly advise against DLCstory continuing to edit the page, however. I'm trying to assume good faith, but it's very difficult when the original version could have been potentially speedied as spam. I don't mean this to come across as a speech, I just really want to stress to her how badly it comes across when someone potentially uploads articles about themselves filled with PR speak and linkspam. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:16, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Admin note Since at least one other editor has made a substantive comment and !vote in good faith at this AFD, it is not being speedily closed as a result of this withdrawal. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:57, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I really feel this article does not have enough notability and can be deleted without jeopardizing other articles. I also must disagree with the SLJ Interview entry being notable. It appears to be part of a blog network of SLJ with the specific blog being called "Practically Paradise" which was formerly hosted on blog.slj.com and now resides on its own domain practicallyparadise.org. Should these blog entries hold the same weight as an article within the monthly SLJ Magazine? My experience with blogging shows bloggers are begging for this type of thing, in this case an interview with a published author, to build content for their blog. This type of coverage can be easy to get for yourself with a simple email to the blogger and doesn't necessary say the person is recognized by the world at large. I really don't think the coverage of this person is significant enough to have a stand alone article. User226 21:43, 14 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by User226 (talk • contribs)
  • Very weak keep, but improve the citing of the article. it seems that the SLJ reference isn't exactly reliable, since it's part of a blog network, however, the coverage in the journals is probably just enough to save the article. More sources should be found, however. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:35, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It seems that both users have concerns over the same source. Could we re-review that source? Either way even if that SLJ Source is capped there are still 2 sources that are considered notable which warrants the article at Keep Status unless i've missed anything. MM (Report findings) (Past espionage) 09:35, 18 June 2013 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dianne_de_Las_Casas&oldid=1137785506"