Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karina Fabian

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 no consensus. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 07:00, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Karina Fabian[edit]

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

Few reliable sources found to indicate encyclopedic fit through WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, and/or WP:AUTHOR. The best bets are an interview at Blogcritics. Other elements, like winning an "EPPIE", is an award from EPIC, not seen as anything substantial at Wikipedia (judging by lack of an article) or by EPIC themselves (considering the award page is at least a year out of date). Books are published through very minor presses (Tribute Books, Twilight Times Books, Damnation Books, LLC), which doesn't seem to lend weight to encyclopedic fit. tedder (talk) 01:23, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 01:24, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 01:25, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 01:25, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Non-notable author lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Fails WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. ttonyb (talk) 21:27, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just wanted to note that EPIC is a international (US and UK) writers association composed of publishers, editors, authors and illustrators. It was established in 1998, and is the leading organizations dedicated to electronic publishing, analogous to RWA. The awards page is current; they have not completed their competition for books published in 2010. Regardless of what gets decided concerning my page, I wanted folks to know that EPIC is an important organization in the electronic publishing world. Karina Fabian (talk) 14:49, 8 April 2011 (UTC)KarinaFabian[reply]

(moved from AFD talk page in WP:AGF) tedder (talk) 15:44, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Click the Google news archive search link at the top of the AFD. The first result is from a major newspaper interviewing her! [1] Look BEFORE you nominate. There is no way you couldn't have spotted that. Dream Focus 11:39, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please AGF. The original source of that is Blogcritics, and I mentioned it. One article doesn't demonstrate a depth of coverage. tedder (talk) 12:18, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[2] quotes her. Says she is the President of the Catholic Writers' Guild. Sounds like a notable position. Dream Focus 12:29, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal: a "Catholic PRWire" "MEDIA ADVISORY" -- NOT. EVEN. CLOSE. TO. INDEPENDENT. NOT. EVEN. CLOSE. TO. RS. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 12:41, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And given that her article claims that she created this guild, no, we have no reason to assume that it is "a notable position" (no mention of it elsewhere on Wikipedia, and little in the way of profile outside). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 12:52, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: a blog-interview (thus neither particularly prominent or particularly reliable, and arguably interview transcripts are a WP:PRIMARY source), repeated on an online newspaper (NOT "a major newspaper" -- Seattle's major newspaper being the Seattle Times), does not notability make. Google News hits present little evidence of anything that could remotely be considered significant coverage, let alone independent significant coverage. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 12:38, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seattle Post-Intelligencer is a major newspaper. Major as in significant, although perhaps not the largest, I don't know. It was a printed newspaper for 146 years, until two years ago when it changed to an online newspaper format. Still the same newspaper, still a reliable source. The fact that someone published the interview in a different spot first, doesn't matter. They declared it notable enough to publish in their online newspaper. And Blogcritics does have a paid staff of editors that has to read and approve anything submitted to them, they not just letting anyone post whatever they want on their site. So they are a reliable source themselves. Dream Focus 13:29, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(i) Media in Seattle lists The Seattle Times as "Seattle's major daily newspaper". (ii) It is possible that the SP-I was a major newspaper before it ceased print publication, but it's unlikely that this status survived the "drastically reduced staff" of its online-only incarnation. (iii) Yes, it does matter that the material in question is retreaded blog content. That is not the sort of material a major print newspaper would generally consider reproducing verbatim -- but is the sort of thing an online newspaper, with a drastically reduced staff, might consider padding their original content with. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:17, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 19:24, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yes, the Seattle PI is still a good enough source to establish notability. Subject appears to have appeared in multiple RS, and COI primary sources are perfectly acceptable for uncontroversial facts about the subject who released them. Jclemens (talk) 21:35, 10 April 2011 (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.