Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beth Sotelo


 * 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. After filtering out all the off-topic comments it seems fairly clear that consensus favors the view that the sourcing provided does not adequately demonstrate notability for this individual. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:38, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Beth Sotelo

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Working on notable works does not confer notability. Gigs (talk) 19:45, 24 February 2011 (UTC)


 * delete: does not meet notability guidelines. couldn't find any significant references in reliable secondary sources. Warfieldian (talk) 20:12, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep: The notable titles she has worked on indeed make her notable, as do the praise she has garnered, for which I've added multiple secondary sources to the article. Nightscream (talk) 21:05, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete: What "praise" would that be? I've just looked through the links in the article, and quite aside from almost all of them being sourced from a single website, the subject is not once discussed by name.  Her name is given as a co-colorer in some of them, while in others her name is mentioned among a number of others attending panel discussions.  In order to pass the GNG, the subject must be directly discussed in "significant detail" in multiple reliable secondary sources.  So far, I can't see that she's discussed in any detail whatsoever in blog reviews.   Ravenswing  05:10, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment There are two sources that discuss her, not one (Newsarama and Comic Book Resources), and they praise her coloring work. In some of the works she is co-colorist, and others she is the solo color artist. The panel discussions are a separate piece of information and haven nothing to do with discussion of the quality of her work, and I never said nor implied otherwise. Blogs are not valid sources, per WP:IRS. Nightscream (talk) 20:18, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply: I apologize - one of those blog reviews does actually mention her name. The sum total of the section is "Stiegerwald and Sotelo round out the visuals with solid coloring. I realize forty-eight pages is a lot to color -- and the duo delivered consistency in this book -- but some of their color choices seemed murky and undefined, such as Firestorm's skin tone."  That is not what anyone would describe as "significant detail," and truth be told, that's faint enough "praise."  In neither of the other two blog reviews is she mentioned at all.   Ravenswing  22:46, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. The article is obviously in need of improvement, but deletion isn't the answer in my opinion. I would like to point out that the article has been improved upon drastically after this discussion was opened. Friginator (talk) 02:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Additional sources seem to make the subject notable enough to keep and expand the article. Dayewalker (talk) 03:11, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree with Nightscream. Dave (talk)
 * Multiple issues...
 * Relying on a self published source for personal information is not a good idea.
 * "Current work" may be OK, but underlining it dates the content.
 * Reviews that, at best, mention her in passing aren't helpful either to the article or supporting notability. They are little better than using the in comic credits to build her list of published work.
 * Notability of a comic does not automatically confer notability to all those who worked on it.
 * At this point, aside from solicitations and the reviews, nothing seems available to support/expand the article.
 * I've got real problems with Nightscream's postings regarding this AfD from 1:45 through 2:10 (UTC). Frankly the post to the Comics Project talk page is fine. But to 17 discreet editors most of whom are participants of the Comics Project smacks of beating the bushes.
 * - J Greb (talk) 04:14, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 03:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree that the article requires improvement. The current sources are pretty scant to contribute much to the article at present. I searched a bit for stuff on her and didn't turn up much more than what was already mentioned in the current article (brief praise for her coloring work).  However, I also found that she was interviewed for the documentary Countdown to Wednesday (a doc about breaking into the comic industry), apparently as their colorist expert. If the article can be fleshed out with more comprehensive mentions/reviews of her work, or her, or anything else, with more attention on her, I would feel more confident voting to keep. I don't think a delete is necessary, but I admit that I would need to see more to vote keep.Luminum (talk) 05:20, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Using primary sources for basic descriptive (non-interpretive) information, like where someone was born or where they went to school is fine, so long as the material is not unduly self-aggrandizing or self-promotional. "I majored in journalism at NYU" is fine. "I graduated magna cum laude with a 4.0 GPA" would be better supported by a secondary source. Nothing at WP:CANVAS indicates that contacting individual editors is disruptive, nor a form of canvasing. Since posting solely on project pages often does not result in participation, contacting individuals, so long as it is done in a manner that is neutral and transparent, is perfectly valid. Nightscream (talk) 16:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Primary sources, and one word offhand mentions do not establish notability.  Contacting [a biased sample of] 17 biased editors about this AfD is indeed canvassing. Gigs (talk) 18:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC) 19:29, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * And referring to other editors as "biased" without proof is a bit insulting. I was contacted by Nightscream and informed of this AfD. I'll confess, I don't know why. I don't recall having a history with NS, nor do I edit a lot of comic-related articles. I was asked to offer an opinion, which I did. Please show how my honest opinion is biased. Dayewalker (talk) 19:12, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It is insulting, not to mention inaccurate. I don't see how the editors contacted (including myself) are "biased" in any way, especially when it comes to this particular article. What is biased is acting hostile towards editors that disagree with your proposal. Nightscream never suggested any particular opinion on any talk page, or, to my knowledge, the talk page of anyone involved. He simply pointed out the discussion. Canvassing is something entirely different. Per WP:CANVAS, "In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it is done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus." Nightscream's edits clearly fall under that description. Nothing has been done that could be considered disruptive or slanted in any direction, but instead has simply furthered the debate. Friginator (talk) 20:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "Biased" is a bad place for Gigs to go Friginator. But Nightscream to go directly 17 editors to get input on this AfD. 16 of who had not edited the article in question and 1 - me - whose contributions were cosmetic rather than content driven. The post to the Comics project talk page should have been enough. Going beyond that and the editors to have put content into the article is canvasing. - J Greb (talk) 23:04, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I really don't think there is a canvassing issue here. I don't know why Nightscream contacted me in particular, but he definitely did not do so to influence the outcome of the AFD. That would be cause for concern. I recommend just focusing on the content here. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 00:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Reviews are not primary sources, they're secondary. As for the editors, how do you figure they're biased? They're editors on comics-related articles, which is precisely the editors who'd have a connection to or interest in such a discussion. If they're biased, then why has one of them voted to keep, and another has opined that there are multiple problems with the article? Sounds to me like they're the exact sort of editors needed. As aforementioned, merely leaving a note on a project page, and in this case, listing the article for deletion, did not attract participants to this discussion. Nightscream (talk) 18:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm hard-pressed to find a reason to keep the article. Since this is a biographical figure, we should refer to WP:CREATIVE #3: "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." My perception is that "a significant or well-known work" has to be more than just being notable enough for Wikipedia's standards. I'm not sure of any of the items in her bibliography qualify as such. If there are no such works, then we fall back on WP:BASIC, where I do not see any coverage of which she has been the subject. I see side mentions, which is not enough. I usually try to find an interview since she would be the subject of that kind of coverage, but a search engine test does not turn up anything. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 00:33, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per my argument above, but I would be happy to revise my !vote if coverage can be provided. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 13:33, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete The sources (which are routine product reviews, not mainstream journalistic publications) barely mention her. That does not establish notability. If there were articles about her and her impact on her profession, that would make her notable. It would appear that there aren't, and she isn't. Perchloric (talk) 02:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Comment: I relisted this page because opinions are still being added but let's keep the discussion focussed on the article and relevant guidelines and stop the personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith. J04n(talk page) 03:31, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I meant biased in the selection bias sense, not as any sort of personal attack. Gigs (talk) 19:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: I can understand "deleting" if entries are suspected of being erroneous, non-factual, misleading, or outright false. But "deleting" something because it is "trivial", is a form of censorship based mainly on subjective taste. What is trivial to some, may not be trivial to others. Just because no mainstream information has sourced it yet, doesn't mean the entry is not important, especially if it was lifted from a source like a film where it can be verified easily. Deletion is a form of censorship, especially if it was UNILATERALLY done and not by consensus. You should have kept the information first, and use consensus to vote that it be removed on issues related to accused "trivial" entries. Unilateral deletion of another person's entry based merely on being "trivial", is bad faith. It is like supression of another person's offer to contribute information that others might not have known yet. There is no threat of spreading false information especially if the entry can be easily verified, so atleast a majority consensus should have been sought first before the entry is deleted. --Pekpeklover (talk) 05:59, 5 March 2011 (UTC) — Pekpeklover (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Reply: There is, in fact, a deletion process governing how and whether articles get deleted; you're seeing it in action right now. As far as your general point, Wikipedia policy and guideline call for the removal of articles which fail to satisfy criteria of verifiability and notability; in particular, it is an ironclad rule that biographical articles of living persons that lack proper sourcing be aggressively deleted.  I recommend that you review WP:V, WP:N, WP:BIO and WP:BLP to gain a better understanding of the pertinent policies.   Ravenswing  11:37, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I was asked to comment on this discussion on deletion by Nightscream coming from a case of "speedy deletion" forcibly done on a non-biographical entry I made on another non-bio topic. I have read the links you mentioned, and it was clearly stated on those guidelines that: "Important note: Failing to satisfy the notability guidelines is not a criterion for speedy deletion". It was also clearly mentioned in the rules that speedy deletion should be made as a "last resort". Seems like some people are "trigger-happy" in deleting contributions made by others by reverting them back. As recommended by the guidelines, people who believe that an entry is "trivial", should have brought the issue first to the author via the "talk" page, then do a consensus from others to judge whether the entry is really trivial that needs to be deleted; I think such orderly procedure is more sensible and worthy, rather than resorting to speedy deletion that only attracts disdain and conflict among good faith authors. --Pekpeklover (talk) 13:30, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's just as well, then, that this doesn't happen to be a "speedy deletion" case. Also, as it happens, the author of the article was contacted a month and a half ago to discuss the lack of references, and failed to respond ... any more than the author has responded to over two dozen notifications about the pending deletion of images and articles he created, since he hasn't been active on Wikipedia in over three years.  Once again, I encourage you to read over the relevant policies - at this point, most particularly, WP:Deletion policy, to gain a better understanding what's going on here.    Ravenswing  13:50, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Jhenderson  7 7 7  19:16, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - None of the sources currently in the article represent significant coverage about Beth Sotelo. At best, they are a passing mention.  Her work has not attracted significant critical attention aside from these one line mentions of particular issues being pretty good on the the colors.  That is not significant critical reviews of her work.  -- Whpq (talk) 16:29, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Both Comic Book Resources and Newsarama are considered reliable sources. If they cover her work, then she is notable.  And obviously a colorist is an important part of a comic book if they review them at all.  So that'd pass WP:ARTISTS on its own, her work significant to a notable work.   D r e a m Focus  01:20, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: Of course, there is no presumption of notability. WP:GNG clearly states that a source must discuss a subject in "significant detail" to qualify.  Further, the criterion of WP:ARTIST misinterpreted above is "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews."  Even were one to assume on the basis of a couple of blog reviews that these represented "significant or well-known work," Sotelo was the assistant colorist in the cited reviews; the lead citations go to Peter Stiegerwald.  No doubt a case could be made that the lead colorist on a comic book plays a "major role in co-creating" it.  One can't be made for his assistant.   Ravenswing  12:47, 10 March 2011 (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.