Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monica Valentinelli (2nd nomination)


 * 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. So Why  15:26, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Monica Valentinelli
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This BLP AFD was previously closed as "No Consensus" more than two months ago. I am renominating it as a failure of the WP:GNG, for the following reasons:
 * Of the seven sources, none contain verifiable, biographical information:
 * one (geeknative.com) is a non-RS blog,
 * one (Onyx Path website) is not WP:INDEPENDENT,
 * three contain purely incidental mentions of her of between one to three sentences or are simply extended quotes from her social media (and, therefore, not intellectually independent),
 * two are either pseudo-reviews or book lists of her books (one is a trade review on Publishers Weekly, the second is inclusion of a book on an "upcoming titles" list on Fantasy & Science Fiction)

GF pinging previous !voters and closer: User:Chrissymad, User:BOZ, User:Calton, User:Agricola44, User:Newimpartial, User:Hobit, User:TonyBallioni, User:Ritchie333. Chetsford (talk) 05:41, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * My BEFORE search on Google News, Google Books, JSTOR, and newspapers.com finds no other RS.
 * On a note not strictly related to the AFD, in this article we use "themarysue.com" to affirmatively declare another BLP (James Frenkel, whose own article is largely sourced to Twitter and Livejournal and should also probably be AFD'ed) has engaged in harassment. While this is not done in WP's own voice it still probably needs sourcing to something more substantial than a website whose declared beat is "comic book movies ... and the weirdest finds on the internet", if available.
 * (A) I think I should point out that Publishers Weekly is not "trade". (1) It is read by librarians. University, school and public librarians are certainly academics, scholars and educationalists. They are certainly not tradesmen. Librarianship (aka library science, information studies etc) is a scholarly academic discipline. There is no such thing as a "library trade". (2) It is read by bibliographers. They are academic scholars pursuing an academic scholarly discipline. (3) It is read by the book buying and reading general public. They are not tradesmen either. (B) The book review in Publishers Weekly is not a psuedo-review, and it counts towards WP:AUTHOR like any other periodical book review. James500 (talk) 06:35, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 05:49, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 05:47, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 05:46, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Newimpartial (talk) 12:07, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Newimpartial (talk) 12:07, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Newimpartial (talk) 12:07, 15 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep if more sources can be found, otherwise move to WP:DRAFT-space so it can be worked on. BOZ (talk) 11:27, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * In principal I have no problem draftifying just about any kind of article. However, I do have a problem draftifying BLPs since we have an obligation to the privacy of individuals to use publicly accessible areas of WP to only host content that is accurate and verifiable. A BLP deleted for absence of RS, therefore, should not be draftified except in a few special cases of which this is not one. If the situation with this individual's notability changes in the future a WP:REFUND could always be requested. Chetsford (talk) 20:26, 16 August 2018 (UTC)


 * keep I believe we typically book reviews are used as RSes for authors (and reviews of an art show for artists etc.). And she's seen limited coverage beyond book reviews in reliable sources.  Hobit (talk) 15:56, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per all of my reasons in the past. The "Keep if we can..." should hold no weight, otherwise AFD is meaningless. We can always wait and wait and have "ifs" but without concrete reliable sources, well, it needs to be deleted. CHRISSY MAD  ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  16:55, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete' and Note that Publisher's Weekly publishes very brief reviews of all books being promote by reputable publishers; WP editors therefore do not count PubWeekly reviews as contributing notability to a book. Valentinelli is mentioned briefly in a few places, mostly minor blogs.  Fails WP:CREATIVE, WP:SIGCOV.   It's probably just WP:TOOSOON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:47, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I have to disagree with you about Publisher's Weekly. While the reviews are not always lengthy, they absolutely do not review "all books" published by reputable publishers. In fact, I once looked and broke it down and found that they are actually very selective. While I personally prefer other review sources when making collection development decisions (for various reasons that are not pertinent here), PW remains a valid RS for Wikipedia's purposes, just as  pointed out. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:47, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I wish Publisher's Weekly reviewed all books. It's so hard for small-press published authors to get into libraries. But yeah, it appears the OP doesn't have the best grasp of the publishing industry, let alone little subsets like RPG publishing. Simonm223 (talk) 18:55, 17 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep while not a case of BLP1E, the sexual harassment incident received widespread coverage as part of a general process of introspection on sexual harassment in gaming; combined with the reviews this definitely puts Valentinelli on the right side of GNG and NBIO requirements. Newimpartial (talk) 20:00, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * the sexual harassment incident received widespread coverage - Where? My BEFORE search on Google News, Google Books, JSTOR, and newspapers.com finds no other RS mentioning Monica Valentinelli. Chetsford (talk) 20:21, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm just not finding sources.  The best I can find is a  brief mentions in the WaPo aritcle .E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:29, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Same. Chetsford (talk) 20:31, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * That seems legit as an additional, mainstream source after themarysue (which is already a RS per editorial oversight and professionalism).
 * Anyway, after the Hillfolk/concrete nomination, I will not be helping you find sources. ;) Newimpartial (talk) 04:48, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note to closer - see above. The argument that sources exist but they cannot or will not be disclosed fails the WP:ORGSIG requirement that sources be demonstrated as opposed to simply being declared. Please weigh this argument appropriately. Chetsford (talk) 18:16, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The sources in the article plus WaPo are more than enough to establish NBIO; you need not petition me for more. Also, as I have noted in other AfDs, you have mistaken the status of Geeknative: its author is a communications professional and journalist who has written on RPGs for Enworld and The Scotsman; therefore Geeknative falls into the class of reliable, self-published sources. Also note that "Industry insider" status at Gencon and Guest of Honour status at Ropecon also contribute to NBIO and CREATIVE, much as you might wish otherwise. Newimpartial (talk)
 * I disagree that a person who has contributed a story to a RS (The Scotsman) is, thereafter, a standalone RS for all time. (That said, I'm probably just generally incredulous that we would ever greenlight something called "Geeknative Blog" as a RS for sourcing to the high threshold demanded of BLPs. This is frightening and concerning.) Second, can you clarify which of the four criterions of WP:NCREATIVE being an "Industry Insider" at the 3900-attendance "Ropecon" game fair meets? Chetsford (talk) 19:05, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It isn't just the story for The Scotsman; I would almost think you're trolling, but I will AGF per policy.
 * I will also AGF and assume some kind of intellectual dyslexia: Ropecon is a Guest of Honor status and Gencon is Industry Insider; the criterion they fit is as evidence of "being regarded as an important figure ... by peers or successors", which you would presumably know if you had read NCREATIVE. I get the sense you are uncomfortable letting creative types decide who is important in their respective fields, but that's what NBIO does. Newimpartial (talk) 19:17, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I get the sense you are uncomfortable letting creative types Not at all. I think our gap of mutuality here is that I'm not comfortable classifying someone who has written an instructional manual for a game as a "creative type" in the way the meaning was intended by NCREATIVE; something that NBOOK says as much when it states that "instruction books" are specifically disincluded from its criteria. I also don't see being an "Industry Insider" at 3900-attendance Ropecon is a greater point of notability than being an "Industry Accolade" at the 40,000-attendance Concrete World Expo ; objectively, however, we would never OK a BLP to Bob Harris of the Decorative Concrete Institute on the basis of him being one once. We all have hobbies but, I think, it's important we are able to properly contextualize the relative importance of those hobbies within society at large and take care we aren't re-imagining their import to squeeze square pegs into round holes. Monica Valentinelli is not exactly Gabriel Marquez; she doesn't have to be for inclusion on WP but she can't be Bob Harris either. But I appreciate we may have to agree to disagree on these points. Thanks! Chetsford (talk) 19:28, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * This statement above is why you probably shouldn't be AfDing RPG related content until you've taken some time to learn something about the field you are discussing. I don't think you have a very strong grasp of what the RPG profession entails, what an RPG constitutes, nor how it connects to the publishing community at large. Simonm223 (talk) 19:37, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I do, however, I appreciate we may have different opinions on game production (creative versus manufacturing) and certainly respect your different view of it. Chetsford (talk) 19:40, 17 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment - Well, Chet, if you want to have an RfC or a Village Pump discussion about whether game designers are covered by CREATIVE, and whether books of game rules, settings and scenarios are covered by NBOOK (as is true for both fiction and non-fiction in general, so there shouldn't be much moving of goalposts), I think that would be grand. It would probably be better for the project than if we "agree to disagree" (sic.)


 * We will certainly continue to disagree about the CREATIVE applications of concrete, although I accept that it has some in the hands of an ARTIST or to entomb one's gangster enemies. :) It doesn't matter, by the way, how many people attend your outlaw biker or undertaker convention, it doesn't make either one relevant to the regard one is held by one's CREATIVE peers. Newimpartial (talk) 19:44, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Ping me when Wizard's Spell Compendium, Volume 4 gets a Pulitzer nomination or its authors an OBE and I'll happily adjust my position. Until then, they're in the same category as Home & Deck Repair, vol. 6: Stains & Finishing; recognized within their industry but completely unacknowledged outside it. There's nothing inherently wrong or disreputable about that and it is no cause for offense, but it is a fact and it needs to be mentioned to help evaluate the suitability of an article for WP when a small industry accolade is mentioned as a cause for keep. Chetsford (talk) 21:55, 17 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete' No evidence of notability.Slatersteven (talk) 09:38, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Per WP:CREATIVE, however, a person has the presumption of notability if they create notable works; as lead writer of the Firefly RPG and lead designer of Hunter: the Vigil, she certainly meets this criterion. Then it is a matter of sourcing, and at last count we have six independent, reliable sources plus the Guest of Honor roles, all of which pretty much nails down the sourcing, I think.
 * I know people get confused about NOTINHERITED, but its application to creators and works is quite simple: creators do not contribute notability to their works, but works most certainly do lend (presumptive) notability to their creators, per NBIO. Newimpartial (talk) 19:08, 17 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep With a small COI disclosure that I have friends who are friends with her, although I don't know her personally. The whole Frenkel situation was a huge in-community kerfuffle, I know WP:BLP1E but aside from this, she's a deeply respected and highly credentialed person within the field and with RSes from the Verge to Publisher's Weekly on the page already I am baffled anyone thought she wasn't notable. Simonm223 (talk) 17:05, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I actually missed that she'd been blurbed by Charles de Lint - which yeah. I mean when a PW mentioned author and games designer is blurbed on her short story anthology by a living legend, how much more notable do you have to be? Simonm223 (talk) 17:17, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * A blurb ≠ WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:38, 19 August 2018 (UTC)


 * A blurb may not independently be WP:SIGCOV but when you combine her coverage in Publisher's Weekly, and the coverage of the Frenkel controversy on the Mary Sue, it presents a strong image of a significant figure in SF/F and RPG publication. Simonm223 (talk) 11:53, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Dan Abrams, a very brief review in Pub Weekly (which gives brief reviews to most/almost all trade books being promoted by mainstream publishers,) and a blurb ≠ WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:46, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Alpha3031 (t • c) 02:24, 23 August 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kirbanzo (talk) 01:15, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. The case for notability is not exactly overwhelming, but the Publishers Weekly, The Verge and The Mary Sue strike me as sufficient to satisfy WP:GNG. – Arms &amp; Hearts (talk) 22:01, 6 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.