Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denise Vega


 * 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. There is consensus, albeit a weak one, for keeping this. The demonstration of coverage in reliable sources has not been adequately refuted. Vanamonde (talk) 04:16, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Denise Vega

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Author of several children's books, but received very little coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:BIO. Brad v  03:49, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:56, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:56, 30 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. Satisfies GNG and AUTHOR. Her books, including "Click Here", seem to have won a lot of awards. There are more than four thousand library holdings of her books: . There is a biography of her in volume 174 of "Something About The Author": . There is some coverage in GNews (303 Magazine). There are book reviews in School Library Journal  (review of "Access Denied")  (review of "Click Here") etc. And there is other coverage in GBooks and elsewhere, such as    . James500 (talk) 00:55, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * That would seem to be an argument in favour of keeping an article on the book, but none of that establishes the notability of the author. Either way, can you please add some sources to one or both of the articles while you're working on this? I'll happily withdraw the nomination if we can find sources, but I couldn't. Brad  v  00:27, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * All of that establishes the notability of the author. We have her biography, reviews and coverage of more than one of her books, awards for more than one of her books (eg "Facts of Life #31" seems to have won, in particular, the Colorado Book Award in 2009, and the Colorado Top Hand Award), a high level of library holdings for her several books generally. It is not as if the coverage was entirely about that one book or that book was the only popular one. And we generally regard an authors' output as being part of the same topic, since notable authors are by definition notable for their works of authorship. James500 (talk) 01:11, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * leaning delete, I am not finding WP:SIGCOV of her or her books in reliable SECONDARY sources. We need to show that either she has attracted INDEPTH coverage, or that one or more of her books has gotten enough attention to carry her past WP:AUTHOR She does have a number of books out with real publishing houses, but I'm fialing to find SECONDARY.  E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:15, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 20:20, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. AmericanAir88(talk)  20:42, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep The subject's books have been reviewed by both Kirkus Reviews and Publisher's Weekly. At least two of her titles have won awards. I cleaned up the article some and added content and reliable sources. Newspaper and magazine coverage satisfy WP:GNG. Subject easily passes notability. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 19:29, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes  23:16, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. I don't think she meets WP:AUTHOR as I can't find additional coverage and the links already there are (1) university faculty page, primary source; (2) short review which says nothing about the author; (3) a review which is a deadlink for me; (4) short article about Vega which looks like WP:ROUTINE coverage; (5) has one sentence on Vega; (6) short reviews of her books in a trade publication; (7) list of library award winners in which she was an Honor winner - looks like it means a runner-up, but I am not sure; (8) her book listed on the shortlist for another award. These might be helpful if we were looking for notability of her books, but they are not WP:SIGCOV of her - in fact I've rarely seen so little coverage of a writer. Tacyarg (talk) 23:56, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Additional coverage has been linked to above. ROUTINE only applies to events: Denise Vega is a person, not an event. The reviews are not short. AUTHOR makes it very clear that book reviews and similar sources count towards the notability of an author. Even if they didn't, all that would be achieved by that kind of objection is a page move to something like "Bibliography of Denise Vega". This would seem to be a waste of time because a notable author is by definition notable for their books. The level of coverage is actually good for a writer: many notable books, including a lot of bestsellers, get no reviews at all. James500 (talk) 00:44, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * delete Looks like it's a little WP:TOOSOON and for lack WP:SIGCOV. Reviews in Pub Weekly and Kirkus are inadequate to pass WP:AUTHOR.  One of her books was reviewed in the  education sectioon of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. that 's real, so is the regional Colorado Book Awards in category: young adult fiction.  In addition there are a couple of articles in local media that cover her as one of a nyumber of local authors.  It's not quite enough.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:24, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * E.M.Gregory, as an FYI, Publishers Weekly is renowned as "the bible of the book business" and an independent international news magazine about the literary world. Opining that PW and Kirkus - also a respected book review publication - is "inadequate to pass WP:AUTHOR" does not compute. While the Seattle PI review is "real," so are PW and Kirkus Reviews. Thank you. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 17:14, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * the thing about PW is that it runs a snippet review of pretty much everything a reputable house is promoting. Yes, it's a functional way to scan upcoming releases. I certainly take it seriously when PW profiles a book or author, or discusses a book in one of their what's-gonna-be-hot-this-season, or in a group article on up-and-coming-teen-novelists, or similar.  But to get a MILL snippet review in PW doesn't mean much more than: this book is being published.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:28, 14 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment Public relations folks practically beg PW to write reviews; PW does not review everything a traditional publisher promotes. All those reviews - for every book they publish? - certainly would overflow in the publication. And that would be news to publishers and authors. The subject's books have been published by Hatchette and Penguin Random House, two of the "big 5" traditional publishing houses - a big deal, unless you also believe it is easy to be published by the top publishers in the industry. Also, the WorldCat catalog shows that the subject's book Click Here alone has 644 copies in public libraries. Before I improved on the subject's article and decided on "Keep," I searched for reviews, news coverage of the subject and books, and WorldCat and found enough to satisfy WP:GNG. Thank you. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 17:53, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Please don't misquote me, I wrote "pretty much everything a reputable house is promoting."E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:43, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I paraphrased. My apologies. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 20:45, 14 September 2018 (UTC)


 * keep WP:HEY, I searched a little harder and found more, we have the old problem here of a much too common name, too many people named Denise Vega in the worls, and adding words like "click" or "book" doesn't help much. Article needs cleanyup, tightening,  Still, I think she scrapes by.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:08, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I found a 2017 review from the School Library Journal, a monthly literary magazine with reviews by librarians. I added it to the article. I too had to search a bit harder to find it, as her name appears to get confused with Vegas. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 19:36, 16 September 2018 (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.