Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlotte Service-Longépé


 * 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. Kurykh (talk) 04:04, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Charlotte Service-Longépé

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Prodded as not meeting WP:NAUTHOR the creator of the article immediately removed tag without modifying the article or adding to the talk page. Domdeparis (talk) 15:44, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi, the article under construction concerned a published French author by a Canadian publisher, she appearing in various newspapers articles (CBC, Le Figaro...) that may be verified on internet, she performed lectures and she attended renowned book fairs (Paris, Nice, Monaco. She is great granddaughter of notably famous poet and writer Robert Service. May you please guide me, best regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rwservice (talk • contribs) 15:52, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Hi to be considered as notable as an author the person has to fulfill one of the following criteria


 * 1) The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.
 * 2) The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique.
 * 3) The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
 * 4) The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.
 * If the person doesn't meet these criteria she may still meet the General Notability Guidelines but this has to proved with multiple verifiable secondary sources. Domdeparis (talk) 16:00, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * p.s. please remember to sign your edits in a talk page with  ~ 


 * This Service biographer and descendant might just notable enough for BASIC. The article bears this excellent piece on her and her work on CBC. There's this interview from France. Weak keep Neutral. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:05, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:06, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:06, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:06, 14 February 2017 (UTC)


 * As the English-language version of her biography is apparently coming out in a matter of months, we may also want to give the creator the option to userfy, if deleted, until such time as she gets more coverage? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:11, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I've struck through my weak keep vote above because of course the concern is we have a descendent who's managed to get a book published. Although this book has apparently won some sort of prize, notable or not, it remains to be seen whether Ms. Service-Longépé is ever going to be independently notable, as an author. Perhaps not. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:15, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:17, 14 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment - I'm more concerned about the conflict of interest than I am about notability. I would say "Keep" if it were a better article. Deb (talk) 16:26, 14 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment Hi all, thank you for your comments. I tried to enrich the author page with all the external resources needed to show that the article will be relevant for wiki users who will certainly wanted to click to know further details about her writing. I do not see any conflict of interest in this.


 * Comment The English version was announced at the beginning of 2015 and has not come out yet. I checked WorldCat and only 3 libraries in their database hold this book and she has published nothing else that is held in the system. I really don't think she meets WP:GNG and clearly fails WP:NAUTHOR over and above the COI problem. Domdeparis (talk) 16:32, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Charlotte Service-Longepe is continuing to write as an author and the page is bound to be created in the future. Please let me know what other information must be added to keep the article online. Her novel is available at Amazon, Fnac and various online bookstores, besides the book Pays de Dinan is sold at the Municipale Bibilothèque Dinan in France, articles from Ouest France are online. She is also performing lectures in Bibliothèques. She is not yet as famous as her great granddad but she is making her way that is why I believe wiki users will be interested in having information available on the page. RwserviceRwservice (talk)
 * Okay, you've swayed me: delete. Based on the above screed and brand-promise, I can't see this being more than a magnet for egregious spam and COI, for a biographical author who's a long way from being independently notable, for now. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:46, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi, how come the article is not a spam! the information written have proof on press articles from main French newspapers, everything is relevant and enrich Wikipedia. Saying that the author is not "notable for now" is only a personal opinion, the author had been published, read and had an important press coverage which show that the author is notable for some readers. RwserviceRwservice (talk)


 * Comment i don't think that you have understood what is meant by notable in terms of Wikipedia. Everyone is notable for someone...please read WP:NAUTHOR and ask yourself which of the criteria this person fulfills. I am guessing that you have some kind of connection with the subject judging by your username. If this is the case you may be having some problems staying neutral. It might be a good idea to read WP:COI. Conflict of interest editing is not advisable as presenting a neutral point of view is almost impossible. Domdeparis (talk) 10:35, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - This author fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. Her only claim to fame comes from the fact she has written a biography of her great-grandfather. I can find no information on her in reliable independent sources, only passing mention in connection with her portrayal of her ancestor. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:39, 16 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody unaffiliated with the subject herself can do better than this. While there's a potentially valid notability claim here, there isn't a properly sourced one: of the five sources here, two are primary ones, one is a glancing namecheck of her existence, and the two that are genuinely reliable and substantive don't really support much information about her besides the fact of writing a book (a fact which is not an automatic WP:AUTHOR pass for all writers of all books in and of itself.) Either there needs to be a greater volume of sourcing about her than this or the book needs to achieve something that makes it notable for more than just existing, such as winning a notable literary award or making a national bestseller list — and even if and when she can be properly shown to pass our notability standards for writers, she still doesn't get to create the article herself (or pay someone to do it for her) under our conflict of interest rules. Sometimes we keep COI articles anyway and just give them a scrubdown for advertorial problems, but there's just not enough substance or enough sourcing here as of yet to overlook the COI in this instance. Bearcat (talk) 20:25, 16 February 2017 (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.