Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dayanara Ryelle


 * 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 Deleted under G7; no prejudice against creation of a new article. Wily D 06:44, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Dayanara Ryelle

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Characterized online as a "fanfiction author", she does not meet our notability guidelines for biographies or WP:AUTHOR. I have not been able to find any independent reliable sources indicating notability. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:08, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Self-published via Lulu, which attracts no notability; I can find no reliable sources indicating that an arm's-length expert has ever given critical attention to her or her books.  Ubelowme U  Me  21:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. The fan fiction entries are two years old and some are even older (like the listing from fanfiction.net under the name "Dayanara Ryelle" which doesn't even represent a valid account). If we could change Google that easily, then we would all make ourselves look like celebrities, would we not? Furthermore, if we wait for "famous" third parties like Publisher's Weekly and The Wall Street Journal to review independently published and small-time authors, we'd miss a lot of good literature. Despite the vanity issue that arises when authors use sites like Lulu and CreateSpace, some people just can't get published on a traditional basis.

Not to mention the fact that her website is reporting over 300 copies "sold" through the Kindle Lending Program's free book promotion. Surely that has to be worth something. Jamie's FanGirl (talk) 05:52, 21 July 2012 (UTC) (Edited by Jamie's FanGirl on July 21, 2012 at 10:52p EDT)
 * Keep. E.L. James started as a fan fiction author and you wouldn't dare look down your noses at her! Besides, how is one supposed to gain "notoriety", as you say, if all avenues are not open to them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.82.64.144 (talk) 14:26, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that having a Wikipedia article is an "avenue" to gaining "notoriety"? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think this person is saying, "How do you expect people to become famous if you quash the ability for people to research them?"
 * I think this person is saying, "How do you expect people to become famous if you quash the ability for people to research them?"


 * Keep. I heard on Twitter that some of Ryelle's intended reviewers are relatively new Amazon users and they aren't allowed to review because borrowing her books don't count toward Amazon's "wait 48 hours after purchasing before reviewing" rules. You shouldn't hold that against her or Jamiesfangirl. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.179.119.115 (talk) 18:38, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. "I heard on Twitter" is not a useful argument here, even if you could produce appropriately-dated quotes from Twitter (which I very much doubt is possible, but don't waste your time proving me wrong), because Twitter users and/or Amazon reviewers are not arm's-length third-party sources of expert opinion and thus their statements are of negligible value to this discussion.  The function of Wikipedia is not to turn any and all self-published writers into E.L. James -- its function is to document them after they attain that level of notability.  Ubelowme U  Me  18:12, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * In other words, if you don't have citations from some high and mighty source, forget ever making a page...the WikiElitists will look down their noses at you and get your page deleted as soon as possible. My question is, how much longer are you guys going to continue refuting my work? Why not stop wasting your time and just delete the bloody page already? Or is looking down your nose at me much more fun? Jamiesfangirl (talk) 06:23, 27 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:BK.  Also, looks like a lot of socks supporting the article here.  Closing admin should ignore them. Qworty (talk) 09:27, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * To quote the template posted by Shawn, it's not the number of votes that count, it's the content within the votes that counts. Remember "good faith"? Or do you not put much stock in templates? Jamiesfangirl (talk) 15:24, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

A Perspective
I would like to say that the comment that "this is not a ballot" evokes the statement, "Oh, wonderful. Then the WikiElitists will turn this whole thing in their favor, delete the article and it will be all over." But that would be sour grapes. Instead, I think I shall use the opportunity to ask you to enlighten me.

If this is not a ballot and not a popularity contest (despite Shawn's comment that the big issue is a lack of notoriety on Ms. Ryelle's part), then why, therefore, is there a link to a website that provides a vote count? Surely a vote count doesn't mean anything if the moderators in charge of pages being deleted are taking everyone's arguments "in good faith"? (Am I missing something here?) Jamiesfangirl (talk)


 * 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.