Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christina Gabbitas


 * 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.  Sandstein  10:38, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Christina Gabbitas

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There are a couple pieces of media out there, but they seem very local and they are either passing mentions, announcements, or interviews. None of which seem to pass WP:NAUTHOR. Drewmutt ( ^ᴥ^ ) talk  23:24, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 00:21, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 00:22, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 00:22, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 00:24, 9 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep not sure why this has been nominated. there are at least 4 different publications covering the author specifically, one of which is giving news of how she won a national book award. I also don't understand why the submitter is objecting to local news publications, implying they are somehow less valuable than national ones. Wikipedia is not intended to be a place for only things of national importance, and local news is not only allowed, but welcomed.Egaoblai (talk) 13:44, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete as per WP:TOOSOON and as PROMO. Overstuffed with paltry sourced.  coverage is in local papers.  Book prizes claimed do not appear to be notable, People's Book Prize.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:51, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The sources are not "paltry" they are both independent of the subject and are about the subject. so WP:N is satisfied. They are textbook examples of what good sourcing should be. Saying they are "local" is not an argument. Regional and Local news is important for the Wikipedia project. Any objections to sources should be made on the grounds of individual sourcing not WP:VAGUEWAVE entire topics.Egaoblai (talk) 01:19, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note on sources. The author's bio has no sources on personal details, birthplace, school, or similar material.  as for soruces on her books. (she publishes books to help children be healthy) booksellers websites are not WP:RS.  The People's Book Prize, some sort of online voting contest, no cash prize awarded, not showing up in searches, not bluelinked,  does not look notable.  There is a handful of articles in local newspapers, much oh it very self-promotionsl:  "Selby author launches national writing competition for children". or just promotes book at a local shop.  No reviews of books.  No profile articles.  just not enough.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:33, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * There are three articles in three independent newspapers specifically about the author. I'm not sure why you think this doesn't pass the WP:GNG. Adding to that, there is another article directly about the author and how she won a national book prize, a book prize that was covered live on national television, so isn't just some random honour either. This isn't really even borderline, it's clearly a notable subject. Egaoblai (talk) 12:54, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Egaoblai, I can see that you are making a good faith effort to keep an article on this author of children's books. Writing an article on a topic you know a lot about is an excellent way to contribute to wikipedia,  and I see that you have written several (not this one) since you joined us.  Welcome, by the way.  Weighing in on these discussions is a great way to learn about how Wikipeida works and what makes a topic sufficiently notable to have a page.  But it can be a steep learning curve.   If you haven't looked at them yet, please look at WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR.  In general, prizes support a claim of notability according to Wikipedia standards when the prize itself is notable. See: Category:American children's literary awards.  Local newspapers often run articles on topics of exclusively local interest, but they also run articles that amount to little more than WP:PROMO for local entrepreneurs or local writers.  This is we expect notable writers and their books to have coverage in major periodicals.  Again, welcome aboard, good editors are always welcome.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:29, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the response, and taking the time to add links for me. I am a firm believer in dialogue and I welcome your contribution here, I hope we can look at this article in the same direction in the spirit of cooperation and a problem to be solved rather than being adversarial. I don't doubt that many articles in local media are promo pieces, but then I also don't doubt that many articles in national pubs are too. Regional and local newspapers are vital to wikipedia and there are articles that rely on them. Some may not be reliable, but this, like other national sources needs to be done on a case by case basis. I don't believe that it is possible to handwave the amount of sources in the araticle here simply by saying they are local and "local newspapers often..." It may or may not be true, but we can't throw the baby out with the bathwater, i.e. delete a topic that has local sources simply because in the past other local sources haven't been good. Just as we wouldn't deny The Guardian because the Daily Mail turned out to be unreliable.
 * So we should look at each of the sources.


 * *1. Lancashire Telegraph. http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/news/10997175.Selby_author_launches_national_writing_competition_for_children/. This one is not a mere promo, but includes an interview with the author. Another one is a profile of her: http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/news/15044029.___Everybody_deserves_a_chance_to_fall_in_love_with_reading______meet_Blackburn_author_Christina_Gabbitas___/ The lancashire telegraph also is a member of IPSO. To me, they seem to be a satisfactory RS. Article passes GNG for being non-trivial and independent of the source.


 * *2. York Press. A similar layout to the Lancashire telegraph and a member of IPSO too. http://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/14282586.Selby_author_s_new_book_to_help_vulnerable_children/ Article passes GNG for being non-trivial and independent of the source.


 * *3. Daily Echo. Member of IPSO. Article passes GNG for non-trivial and independent of the source.


 * Now interestingly enough, these three papers are of the same parent company. Although I do assume that their editorial boards are separate, so that shouldn't make a difference. To the charge of promotionalism, I'm not sure it stands up. Most news articles on authors, bands, entertainers are going to involve whatever the latest project/release of the author is and this goes for all media. I don't see the articles as being overly promotional, in any case, the interviews show that they aren't mere churnalism. To me, these sources alone would satisfy notability. But there is also:


 * *4. The People's Book Awards. As noted in the article, The author won an award. Now of course, not all awards are notable, but according to their website: http://www.peoplesbookprize.com/publisher.php they have a fairly long list of participating publishers. the awards were also broadcast live on a national tv channel, which I assume would lend some notability, though it may be too soon to be sure.


 * I hope this has cleared up my objections to the deletion of the articleEgaoblai (talk) 15:03, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * While I sympathize with your enthusiasm, these local sources fail to pass WP:AUTHOR orWP:GNG. You might want to scroll up and click:  list of Authors-related deletion discussions, where you can look at  other, similar discussions, to get a sense of how  sources are weighed.17:05, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Probably not surprisingly, I'm siding with here. I don't have much to add than what he's already said, but "according to their website" is obviously OR, and on their site, their tagline is "The home for new and undiscovered works" which doesn't bode well for WP:TOOSOON. Blankets to protect your wife from your farts are sold on national TV, so no, I don't see that as evidence of notability. Drewmutt ( ^ᴥ^ )  talk  23:08, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * As stated above, the subject passes WP:GNG. Does she pass WP:AUTHOR? well that would need to be proved one way or the other definitively, which it hasn't been. As for the awards, they were broadcast on national television. If they are for "new and undiscovered works" then that doesn't mean anything as regards to notability, as notability is not what is claimed by an org, but what others have said, and if a national TV station took the editorial decision to broadcast the awards, then that's a very good indicator of notability.Egaoblai (talk) 00:42, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:41, 15 December 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   11:53, 22 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - Significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Local sources are not good evidence of notability for companies but they're acceptable for people. ~Kvng (talk) 15:42, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * And the whole delete argument seems to rest on the idea that local sources on wikipedia are not legitimate, a view that has no foundation in any guideline or rule, promotes systemic bias and is countered by the thousands and thousands of articles that primarily use "local" sources. This is an easy keep. Egaoblai (talk) 08:48, 29 December 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.