Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monica Valentinelli


 * 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. The discussion is getting heated, with personal attacks flying around, and arguments for and against deletion have been adequately stated, so I'm going to put a lid on this now. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  12:43, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Monica Valentinelli

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

After trimming down all the unsourced fluffy stuff, I can find no evidence this person meets any sort of inclusion criteria and certainly fails WP:GNG. CHRISSY MAD ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  04:17, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Please note the article now has several independent, non-trivial sources and meets GNG and WP:AUTHOR (as lead author of two games, each of which meets GNG - each. in fact, has a WP article of its own ... Newimpartial (talk) 02:27, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Newimpartial (talk) 15:24, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Newimpartial (talk) 15:28, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Newimpartial (talk) 15:31, 8 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep if more sources can be found, otherwise move to WP:DRAFT-space so it can be worked on. BOZ (talk) 19:44, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Do you have any sources or even any evidence that there could be sources? Do you have any evidence that the subject meets WP:GNG? Because if you don't, moving to Draft space is a waste of time. --Calton | Talk 03:13, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Considering that a number of additional sources have been added to the article since Calton's comment, it should be given preciely the WEIGHT it deserves. Newimpartial (talk) 20:33, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * To clarify on my earlier posting, I would like to affirm my Keep after Newimpartial has added more sources on top of what I added. BOZ (talk) 03:52, 13 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. If a one-paragraph review of book she edited and passing mention in a newspaper story is the best that User:BOZ can scrape up, an obvious fail of WP:GNG. This should have been failed at WP:BLPPROD, but apparently that doesn't apply any more. --Calton | Talk 03:13, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Calton, BLPPROD applies when there literally aren't sources, as you ought to know by now. You sexy edit warrior, you. Newimpartial (talk) 15:18, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note that the previous editor has consistently ignored the actual state of sourcing of the article since his previous PROD, so this !vote should be considered non-compliant with policy. Newimpartial (talk) 20:21, 10 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. WorldCat shows Upside Down holdings in mid double-digits. Publisher's Weekly is a trade review, which doesn't count toward notability. There's really not much else here. Agricola44 (talk) 15:59, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment You are incorrect, Publisher's Weekly does count towards notability. It can help establish CREATIVE. Publisher's Weekly reviews only a fraction of what is published. The fact that they chose to review this book is significant. Now, there do need to me more sources to show CREATIVE... one review is not enough. But making the assertion that Publisher's Weekly isn't a reliable source is incorrect. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:31, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I wish you would be a little more careful with your assertions. I most certainly did not claim that PW was not reliable. What I did say is that, a piece in this trade publication is not a very meaningful demonstration of notability and that is because PW does pre-publication reviews for an enormous number of books (~10,000 per year), i.e. "for the trade" to help book buyers/sellers. It is not very selective. Such a review is not even close to the same stature as a post-publication hardback or journal review. As an example, here is a recent PW review, which you can see is roughly what might be on the dust jacket, and here is a recent journal review (from Nature), which is highly selective (this journal does perhaps 2 dozen per year), and discusses the book in substantially greater depth. Using your logic, we should be creating ~10,000 new articles per year for authors with PW reviews. Agricola44 (talk) 04:36, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * When you say that it doesn't count towards notability, it does imply that it's not reliable. Yes, it's a trade publication to help libraries and bookstores choose books: that doesn't make it any less selective. As I've pointed out before, PW only reviews a fraction of the many books that are published every year in both English and Spanish. And no, we don't need to add 10,000 articles a year because they are reviewed by Publisher's Weekly. What we can do is use the PW review along with other reviews to show notability. PW doesn't have to be as selective as Nature to still be selective. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:26, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Your first statement is nonsense because you have causality mixed-up. Not reliable does imply not notable, but not notable does not necessarily imply not reliable. There are many other things that can imply that something is not notable. PW is one of them: it's reliable, but does not imply notability. I hope that is now clear to you. As to your claim that PW's ~10,000 dust jacket summaries "doesn't make it any less selective" than a journal's ~20 in-depth reviews, I'm at a loss. I can't fathom such reasoning. Best wishes, Agricola44 (talk) 21:29, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment -Note that Agricola is completely ignoring the subject's main claims to notability, the Firefly Role-Playing Game and Hunter: the Vigil, so their !vote should be ignored. Newimpartial (talk) 20:21, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Keep subject meets notability requirements as lead designer/writer of the Firefly RPG and the 2nd edition of Hunter: the Vigil, thus satisfying WP:AUTHOR. Note that all claims in the article are now sourced. Newimpartial (talk) 19:46, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Since I've now been asked twice on my talk to reconsider, I'm going to disagree with you and break down the sources:

CHRISSY MAD ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  15:35, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * is not an independent rs, it's an interview on what appears to be a blog type website with no editorial oversight
 * promo piece written by the author
 * one single 3 sentence mention hardly makes this significant independent coverage
 * this is a review about a book she edited, not even close to coverage of her and not exactly enough to sustain an entire blp
 * this one is much like the third, listed with several books and not much more than a few brief sentences
 * a two sentence mention of what she wrote in her blog.
 * Let me break that down for you, Chrissymad:
 * the geeknative piece is significant and indipendent, though arguably not reliable;
 * the onyx path piece is not independent and does not itself contribute to WP:N, ''except that' it confirms that the subject is lead developer of a game which itself meets notability requirements.
 * a three-sentence mention in a RS is quite significant, and is not at all a TRIVIALMENTION in the sense of WP policy.
 * the review of her book in a RS is absolutely signifiant and relevant per WP:AUTHOR, while the sourcing other sourcing is sufficient to document the article in compliancw with BLP requirements.
 * another substantial mention in a relable source.
 * Here we have an author of several significant, notable and independently sourced books and games, who does meet GNG requirements as well. Newimpartial (talk) 15:49, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't have a lot of time right now but to respond to a few of these quickly, the first one is in no way useful to determine notability, which is what we're doing here. It's not independent, it's literally one person asking her questions and her answering. It's not coverage. 2.) confirmation of this fact is not debated, but it's not coverage 3.) a three sentence quick mention would be significant if there were any other coverage. There isn't. 4.) not enough to establish notability on it's own and it's not coverage of her 6.) no, her being quoted once from her blog in a 2 sentence mention is not at all significant. CHRISSY MAD  ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  15:56, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Chrissymad, you are taking an idiosyncratic view of what constitutes significant coverage; multiple sentences would always be significant per policy.
 * You are also taking a personal view when you argue that coverage of the work does not contribute to the notability of the author. This is the opposite of the position in WP:AUTHOR and the general interpretation given to WP:N. Newimpartial (talk) 16:07, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I never said coverage of the work doesn’t lend itself to notability, it does but most of this isn’t significant independent coverage of either the subject or her work and in the absence of actual significant independent reliable coverage of either these sources are not enough CHRISSY MAD  ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  16:17, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Are you denying that there is significant coverage of the Firefly Role-Playing Game? Newimpartial (talk) 16:26, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * By the way, I added an additional non-trivial mention (the entire article desls with the subject) from themarysue.com . There is no reason to think the subject will become less notable, but it is not TOOSOON either.Newimpartial (talk) 00:32, 13 February 2018 (UTC)


 * weak keep Not great sources but the WP coverage (limited though it is) and being invited to be a speaker at GenCon are indicators of notability. The sources technically meet WP:N and the subject is, IMO, notable.  Call it a "IAR" !vote if you must, but I'd say she's notable. Hobit (talk) 20:02, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per Chrissymad's analysis of the sourcing, which I endorse. Newimpartial's analysis is correct if we use the 2006 era standards of what it means to be notable, but Wikipedia has changed since then, and our interpretation of the notability guidelines in practice has evolved to require much more substantial coverage than presented. The basic premise is this: coverage on Wikipedia should not be the greatest amount of coverage a subject has received. If it is, generally they should be deleted unless not covering them would harm the credibility of the encyclopedia. In this case, there is no reason to think they should be covered or that coverage here would not be the most significant coverage they have received. Deletion is the obvious answer. (talk) 17:44, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * TonyBallioni, is it really your view that the author of at least two notable works (per their current sourcing and the presence of Wikipedia articles for them) should not have their own article based on the current state of sourcing reflected in the article? It seems to me that - given 2018 standards of notability - the correct approach in Wikipedia is *not* to delete the articles on the authors of recognized notable works, at this level of sourcing, any more than it would be to delete the articles for musical groups with recognized notable albums under similar circumstances. YMMV, TonyBallioni, but I find it hard to believe that it does in this matter. Newimpartial (talk) 21:10, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Notability is not inherited, and she was either a contributor among many or a non-notable staff level position on the other things. I've worked for notable clients in the past and arguably been a part of producing a notable work product, but I'm not notable. The standard is the sourcing for her as an individual. The coverage of her here is more significant than we see anywhere else. The article should be deleted. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:20, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The subject was line developer and lead author for both of the works in question - Firefly Role-Playing Game and Hunter: The Vigil - and not "a contributor among many". Your statement, TonyBallioni, is equivalent to equating her work editing an anthology to contributing a story to an anthology. NOTINHERITED applies to the relationship between an anthology and the authors of stories, but does not apply to the relationship between the anthology and the anthologist, or between a game and its author. Newimpartial (talk) 21:25, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * These are staff level positions that do not imply notability. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:32, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I will AGF here, TonyBallioni, as perhaps you are unfamiliar with Tabletop roleplaying publication, but you are simply wrong here. To use the Fifefly example, Ms. Valentinelli had primary creative reaponsibility for the game line, and authored (solely or primarily) most of the books belonging to the line up to 2016. The relationship between her and the game was equivalent to that between Bertold Brecht and his plays of the 1930s, and the presence of collaborators in both cases should not confuse the fact.
 * On the broader question of encyclopaedic content, WP:AUTHOR seems precisely designed to countence the case where notability attaches primarily to a creator's multiple, notable works rather than the creator's bio per se. It seems to me that pages allowing navigation of a creator's multiple notable works or a band's multiple notable albums is of encuclopaedic value in itself, and in this case the sources allow significantly more. To suggest that the value of those pages depends on whether other sources do, or so not, offer the same information in one place seems to me to reflect a somewhat blinkered notion of what encyclopaedic value is. Newimpartial (talk) 21:49, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, and that is a staff-level position within a larger company: she was hired by the firm to take the actions. She did not create it on her own and use the firm to publish. Even if notability was inherited (which it isn't), she would not be notable. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:52, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Again I will AGF, but in the RPG industry it is common for writers to create and manage IP on a hire or contract basis, and it does not affect the authorship of their work, nor the way it is treated on Wimipedia. Q.V. Robin Laws. Newimpartial (talk) 22:02, 12 February 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.