Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carmelo Rafala


 * 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. NW ( Talk ) 22:39, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Carmelo Rafala

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete as Rafala fails to meet the WP:BIO standards for notability. The citations in the article are to passing mention in brief articles detailing the content of recently published magazines, they are not reviews of his work. For example, Woomfy says that these two sentences at SF Site: ''Carmelo Rafala's "Boxboy" is a darker story about a mutant child with telekinetic powers. The authorities are trying to harness them, and he cooperates in order to please the woman doctor with whom he has bonded. But when another doctor pushes him... Rafala resolves things starkly and logically. constitute a notable review''. They do not. Rafala has not been often nominated for awards, he has been nominated once, and that for an award that has not yet received a Wikipedia article. What can be said is that he is a published author. --Bejnar (talk) 16:40, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Insufficent notability ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:59, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - He is a publushed author, but not a notable one. The reviews aren't really from reliable sources and as quoted in the article, taken out of context to make them appear much more significant than they are. -- Whpq (talk) 16:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Remain intact and not for deletion Reviews are from notable sources in the field and reliable if you do the research on them. Remarks are made about the work and, therefore, reflect upon author's ability as a professional. This is standard practice and is reflected elsewhere. Become familiar with the field of publishing before jumping to conclusions about what is and is not notable or acceptable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Woomfy (talk • contribs) — Woomfy (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment - we are judging based on WP:NOTE, wikipedia's specific definition of notability, and we are going by WP:RS, which is wikipedia's policy on reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 18:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment reply publications listed are reliable, professional third party sources. It is not atypical in any industry for quotes to be used as evidence for author's credibility or notability. Points mentioned in the Rafala article on his work--and in the review pieces themselves, as listed above and linked on the page--do constitue notable reviews. See reviews from professional markets such as The Fix, Interzone, Black Static, Asimov's, Analog, The Guardian, The Times and other professional publications to see similar reviews of various works. These are industry standard reviews. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Woomfy (talk • contribs) 22:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC) — Woomfy (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Reply They are one line statements taken out of context and inflated in importance. -- Whpq (talk) 01:15, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Reply to comment One line statements or more are used to demonstrate the quality of a work, which, in turn, reflects upon the author. Extended comments or in depth analysis is only required when creating an academic thesis or text for study. One again, these are industry standard practices and are acceptable and professional methods. I humbly ask if you could accept and/or adopt industry publishing standards. (Woomfy (talk) 13:01, 26 August 2009 (UTC)) talk  —Preceding undated comment added 12:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC). — Woomfy (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Reply - Coverage needs to be significant. One-liners fall well short of significant. -- Whpq (talk) 13:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Reply to comment If one or two liners fall well short of significant, than all the major encyclopedias in the world have been doing it wrong, as well as the major critics and publishing houses. Coverage over more than one review is considered significant. As a university lecturer, I am sure that I know my business and what is standard procedure and what is not. (Woomfy (talk) 22:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC)) — Woomfy (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete. Fails notability as an author. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:31, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Response Once again, the definition of notability as pushed here does not meet with professional standards. If you are supposed to be an encyclopedia, you need to adopt industry standards to become accepted as a reliable tool by the academic and information sectors. As a professional, I am at a loss to see how you cannot understand that. See comments above, once again. (Woomfy (talk) 23:33, 28 August 2009 (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.