Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ilien Guadalupe Tolteca


 * 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 as WP:TOOSOON. Could be recreated if there is additional coverage to establish notability in the future. RL0919 (talk) 22:08, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Ilien Guadalupe Tolteca

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Extremely WP:TOOSOON article of an emerging artist; the notability claim is that they "promoted vaccination through coloring books" (the website credits them by Instagram handle, not by name). Sources are local news and their high school website. They're probably going places! But they have't got there, yet.

Relevant article history, for full disclosure: I put a PROD on this, which was reverted by the original editor, who gave this as the reason: "Deletion is not accepted since the artist has credible sources to support her journey as an artist. The artist is seen in her local newspaper and performing arts center." Alas, I don't think either of those count significantly towards notability. asilvering (talk) 21:56, 14 December 2021 (UTC) Comment (nom): article used incorrect pronouns, which I just noticed (pronouns given on artist's instagram); I've edited this AfD and I'll get to the article in a second.
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. asilvering (talk) 21:56, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. asilvering (talk) 21:56, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. asilvering (talk) 21:56, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. asilvering (talk) 21:56, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. asilvering (talk) 21:56, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Comment: Newspapers are credible and artists are difficult to be seen as notability without books but online resources are just as reliable. If the artist did not have newspapers about her it would not be credible but it does. This artist deserves to be recognized on Wikipedia for being involved not only in her community but school. CSUCI's reports on her are credible since it is a real school and the local newspaper is seen by over one million residents which is reliable. The local newspaper is credible to keep this artist on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oxnardgirl (talk • contribs) 22:08, 14 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete - Does not meet notability criteria for WP:GNG, WP:NARTIST, WP:BASIC nor WP:ANYBIO. The sourcing is very weak and none of the sources count towards establishing notability - 1st source: interview with no editorial content; 2nd: announcement of her candidacy for a student government position; 3rd: student award; 4: download site; 5: trivial - name check. It is way WP:TOOSOON for this person to be considered for a biographic encyclopedia article. (An aside: This is yet another WikiEdu article of a non-notable artist - I find it somewhat heartbreaking that the teachers are not assigning notable topics for their students to work on. This can result in their students' work being deleted which does not cultivate enthusiam and continued productivity on the part of student editors. It also wastes other editors time.) Netherzone (talk) 22:15, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I've seen an instructor for a WikiEdu course (not this one) tell a student that their article on a non-notable person had "enough secondary sources" to confer notability. I don't know why this communication breakdown is happening but it looks to me like the teachers themselves can't solve the problem and WikiEdu needs to be a lot more clear when they're working with an instructor who isn't already a Wikipedia editor themselves. Heartbreaking is right. -- asilvering (talk) 22:32, 14 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi Thank you for providing an explanation of your perspective here! What we're looking for isn't whether the artist is "credible" - they certainly are an artist, who exists, and who has done the things that have been described in the article. The issue isn't that those sources aren't real or can't be believed. Instead, what we're trying to establish here is "notability". Specifically, you can see the relevant guideline for artists at WP:ARTIST. This is a guideline, not an outright rule, but you can understand from this the level of notability that Wikipedia is looking for: basically, that an artist is well-known for their art, and/or has attracted significant critical attention. The simplest way to demonstrate this is that an artist's art is in the permanent collections of several notable art galleries. As far as I can tell, this artist isn't at that stage of their career yet. What happens now is that other editors will chime in with additional supporting evidence, or they will argue, as I have, that this artist shouldn't have a sole-subject Wikipedia page (yet).
 * I was about to write something to your talk page when I noticed you'd replied here; I'll be by in a minute. To the regular AfD crowd: this is a WikiEdu student editor. Please take care to be as unbitey as possible if arguing for deletion. Thank you! -- asilvering (talk) 22:30, 14 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete - Undoubtedly too soon. Seems like an excellent person and an editor with the best of intentions, but with the best will in the world it still doesn't make for notability yet. If there is a good chance of more and better sources being found or generated and more notable accomplishments, then I would be content for this to be draftified with the intention of an amplified version going for review in a few months. At present it just doesn't cut the mustard.  Velella  Velella Talk 23:21, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete For an artist to be of encyclopedic interest, we need to see that the body of work they have created has received sustained critical attention. That usually takes (many) years, sometimes a lifetime. This is much too soon. Vexations (talk) 23:54, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Zero hits in GNews or newspaper search. Oaktree b (talk) 00:15, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Reluctant delete. None of the sources cited helps to establish notability. I failed to find anything better. Reluctant, because I admire what Tolteca has done. Maproom (talk) 08:37, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Does seem like it's WP:TOOSOON - maybe will warrant an article in a few years. -Kj cheetham (talk) 23:08, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - Agree with the above, too soon - possibly further along in this person's career, an article may be warranted. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:11, 18 December 2021 (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.