Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Celia en el mundo


 * 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. Nousernamesleft copper, not wood 01:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Celia en el mundo

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

Fails WP:BK. It has no notability, no major coverage in third-party reliable sources, and the article is completely unreferenced, despite including plot analysis and interpretation, and consist primarily of plot summary and a completely unrelated mention of the television series that it was not adapted for. Not even sure the purpose of that section. AnmaFinotera (talk) 23:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * You are right that WP:BK C3 doesn't apply here, unlike possibly Celia en el colegio. The series as a whole, however, is clearly notable, if only only on WP:BK C3 grounds, so at worst a merge to a series article. Given what I'm finding online, it shouldn't be too hard to reference the notability asserted in the article; I'd do it myself, but my Spanish is rusty enough I don't trust myself to fully evaluate the reliability of sources. Withholding !vote till others have a chance to research. —Quasirandom (talk) 23:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The Celia books are the Little Women and Anne of Green Gables of Spain, they're classics. Why on earth should they be dropped?  The books were not written to support the television series, the series was made due to their popularity among children for over seven decades.


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions.   —Quasirandom (talk) 23:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.   —Quasirandom (talk) 23:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep need to avoid recentism and systemic bias. Book is of notable author. Not a tie-in as it antedates the TV material. Criteria 3 and 5 look likely to be fulfilled to me. Book sourcing can be difficult online due to wading thru online booksellers. Should notify spanish wikiproject methinks. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Has nothing to do with either "recentism" nor "systemic bias." If author is notable, why does she have no article either? Online searches for information about her almost all book store listings. If she's notable, please actually show it rather than just say it. Give the sources and fix the articles. Also, from above del sorts, Spanish project was notified. FYI, though these are claimed by the creator to be "classics" and important to Spanish literature, there are no articles for any of the Celia books on the Spanish Wikipedia. There is a single very brief article on the television series and a brief one on the author.AnmaFinotera (talk) 04:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Lack of online content means little in this case - many older notable folks lack articles - much of the online info on various notable people is meagre at best and there are requests all over for various redlinks. Doesn't worry me. I have this hope we can do better research and sourcing than just googling for a few minutes. I have found books essential for all my FAs and an increasing number of my GAs too. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but can you do the same here is the question. Its not enough to just say "I'm sure sources exist" but they must actually be provided to point out the notability of this specific book. AnmaFinotera (talk) 05:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't as I am not familair with the material. I am extrapolating that there would be from what I have seen and the depths to which material of similar calibre has been covered. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * AnmaFinotera, how about understanding a subject and being familiar with it before deciding or judging upon its notability? The arguments you make here are pretty poor; very immature of you to attack the subject by purposely renaming it to "Cecil" (twice), what's Celia done to you?  You may be surprised to know that the Spanish Wikipedia lacked an article on Spain and the Deutsch Wikipedia lacked an article on Germany until one was began for each.  You should stick to Wikipedia's standard criteria and not rely on your own made up one, then claim that all these users simply "don't know the policies have changed."  So far, all your nominations for deletion have been antagonized and not been supported once; this makes your credibility seriously questionable.  Please refrain from reviewing further articles of my creation, I'll prefer someone who uses the standard Wikipedia known to all serious contributors, not just yourself.  Also, do something about that angry tone you can't help but show in all of your recent comments regarding these articles.  Thank you very much and no, this comment isn't meant to "attack." T.W. (talk) 21:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Um, sorry, but many of my nominations for deletion have resulted in deletion. Few of my nominations have been "antagonized" and most have been supported. Telling falsehoods is another form of an attack. You incited the angry tone with your completely uncalled for abuse. And yes, I made a typo, big deal, everyone makes them. We're human. One does not have to understand or be familiar with a particular subject to judge its notability. If its notability is not clear and not supported by sources, anyone can easily and properly say "it is unlikely to be notable." You've yet to actually provide any sources to back up your claims, instead choosing to viciously attack me and getting yourself blocked. If you're so certain it is notable and that I just didn't look well enough, then all you have to do is prove it and provide reliable sources to back up the extraordinary claims you've made. That is Wikipedia policy and it is the same standard known to all contributers who bother to read them. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 22:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not talking about your other nominations, I'm talking about the four you made against articles of mine in less than four consecutive minutes. No support, which I repeat puts your credibility at risk.  I'm beginning to reconsider the use of images on other articles.  You have a problem with everything, so as long as it is only you, I shouldn't be concerned on whether something violates any policies.  Especially when someone reviews an article for "Good article" and declares that the use of something is perfectly acceptable.  The typo was made on purpose, but I don't care and about going to waste my time arguing with you about it.  As for the "abuse," oh you poor thing, I don't care or regret it. T.W. (talk) 22:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not worried about my credibility, thank you. It stands just fine on its own. I strongly suggest that you do not start deciding you can ignore policies just because I was the one who pointed them out to you. And, in fact, these four nominations have not been "antagonized" at all. This one has one keep, and comments. I'll even be bold and note that Quasirandom and I generally work quite well together, and his comments are not antagonistic in the least. Deletion discussions are just that, discussions. Like all discussions on Wikipedia, we try to keep them civil and sticking to the information available. Sometimes people have different experiences and different information sources that can show that the deletion criteria is not met. Sometimes not. Its part of working in a collaborative environment. If others can show these books are notable, since you don't seem to want to do that work, and the articles are kept, that's fine. That's part of the process. --  AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 22:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm going to presume that your remark about GA refers to the tags on The Rescuers and a GA review done a little over a year ago, before the non-free image policies were changed. What was considered fine then is not any longer per the Wikimedia Foundation. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 04:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't ignore Wikipedia's policies, if I were to do that, I'd have no business here. However, I do ignore your policies; when I read Wikipedia's rules on a subject and along comes you telling me that "it says that but it really is like this" (such as the episode-summary length issue), well, then I'm sorry, but what's officially written down is what I listen to, not what you think is best or what appeals to you.  All your nominations have indeed been antagonized, as all have at least on Keep, which goes against deletion.  For the record, everyone else I asked agreed that a book or film was eligible for Wikipedia as long as there was proof that it existed and that it was widely released to the public.  Naturally, you tend to have your own views, so I'm not too worried.  The books exist, are beyond notable, and future articles will be created as soon as I get hold of the books, whether they please you or not.  I don't write to please you, I'm sorry. T.W. (talk) 23:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * No use in arguing, let us end it here. How about next time you simply put up a request for references and sources rather than just nominate an article for deletion?  I simply don't have the time right now to search for sources, I plan on doing it, but just not right now.  Plus, a request gives other people the opportunity to go ahead and do so for themselves.  I started the article, I never declared it complete or even close to being complete.  Here:  You need proof that these books are in fact consider classics and you will not take my word for it, that's fine.  This is all I have time to share with you right now, I hope it'll make a difference.  The publisher, not the author, not me, and not a critic, states on the very back of the book,"Celia es la protagonista del clásico infantil español por excelencia"("Celia is the protagonist of the Spanish children's classic for excellence").  This same statement appears on the backs of all first five books released by this publisher, which includes both Celia en el colegio (1932) and Celia en el mundo (1934). T.W. (talk) 01:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * This article will prove useful. It seems that the best information shows up when I'm not looking for it.  It is an interview had with the Spanish director José Luis Borau, where he states his belief that the best of children's literature in Spain has been that written by Elena Fortún.  José Luis Borau is an important and well-known Spanish film and television director.  Notable or not? T.W. (talk) 23:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * In the same article I posted above, Borau mentions that Carmen Martín Gaite, an award-winning Spanish author, who colaborated with Borau in writing the script for the 1992 series describes herself as a "Celia-addict". "Porque, como ella [Carmen Martín Gaite] misma se define, es una Celioadicta." Borau also mentions the devotion so many other Spanish authors had for Elena Fortún's work. "Carmen tenía siete años. Yo sabía de esa devoción por el personaje, y no sólo suya, sino de otros muchos escritores, como por ejemplo Ignacio Aldecoa, García Hortelano, Gil de Biedma, que han reconocido haber aprendido a escribir, sobre todo a dialogar, con los libros de Elena Fortún." This article also gives us the reason as to why the 1992 series was cancelled, as well as other useful pieces of information.  So, it'll be a good source for a number of different articles, perhaps even Cristina Cruz Mínguez, as she is mentioned as well. Since you also question the notability of the author herself, well, Elena Fortún had a bust sculpted in her memory in the year 1957 by sculptor José Planes Peñalver.  The bust stands at el Parque del Oeste in Madrid, Spain. [ http://recursos.cnice.mec.es/bancoimagenes/ArchivosImagenes/DVD02/CD01/h8866_a.jpg]T.W. (talk) 01:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep: the sources provided so far, plus others found through Google Books, demonstrate the historic notability of the author (WP:BK C5) and strongly indicate passing C1 as well. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Glad to see someone appreciates the time and effort I took out of my unusually busy schedule yesterday in order to support these articles. *bows* T.W. (talk) 15:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The nominations can just about be reversed. The nominator has anger issues which influences her insisting that these articles should be removed at all costs.  Her claim that an 18-year-old is not adult, despite federal laws contradicting her belief, well, uh-huh.  There's further stuff out there, not only online but in published books and other mediums, so there shouldn't be concern.  Like I said, and the nominator insists on ignoring based on the claim that I am "an immature child" lacking the time to spend my days looking up sources for the Wikipedia, these books are on the same level of notability as are the Anne of Green Gables sequels, and no one, not even the nominator herself, feels the need to contradict those. T.W. (talk) 15:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for continuing to prove my point. The nominations will run their full course, like any AfD. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 15:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * And thank you for proving mine all along. The nominations will not be interrupted, naturally, but we can guess on their outcome.  Continue ignoring me, please, if you think I am an immature child based on whatever definition of maturity or immaturity you may have. T.W. (talk) 16:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep but add some of the criticism that is no doubt available, needs to be done by someone who knows the material & the language. DGG (talk) 21:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - what offered, and a small personal enquiry in google books, convince me that this book clearly passes WP:BK C5.--Aldux (talk) 23:53, 21 May 2008 (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.