Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rosemary Valero-O'Connell


 * 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.  Sandstein  12:17, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Rosemary Valero-O'Connell

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Looks like a case of WP:TOOSOON the subject is a freelance artist working on her first graphic novel. She was nominated for 2 Eisner awards but i don't think this is enough to meet #4c of WP:NARTIST. The sources are too weak mostly interviews passing mentions and affiliated stuff. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:29, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:29, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:29, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:29, 28 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I do not think this page should be deleted; Valero may indeed be an up and coming artist but I believe she has a relevant place on Wikipedia, especially given that her novel with Mariko Tamaki (Laura Dean Keeps Breaking Up With Me) will be coming out in 2019. The graphic novel is highly anticipated and I expect it will have its own Wikipedia page in the future that Valero can be linked back to. For her to be nominated for two Eisner awards in the same year, even before the publication of this novel, shows that she will be a name in the comics industry to look out for. If this page were to be deleted, it would pop up again within a year. This is also not her first graphic novel, it is her second. Reneeidk (talk) 20:15, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL. Dom from Paris (talk)


 * I stand by what I said; while true that we cannot truly predict the effects of her new novel, it is indisputable that she has created other works. Having her own page would help link many of her works back to her, including work with Lumberjanes, Steven Universe, and Gotham Academy. Reneeidk (talk) 20:04, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * This page is fine as it is. Not all great comic artists have books, many can only be sourced through news articles. Additionally, it is not her first graphic novel but her second that is in production. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RenRen1310 (talk • contribs) 15:58, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:19, 1 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete I have to agree with the nominator, the sources are pieced together very minor mentions that do not in total merit an article. She probably will in the years to come though. The Vice article is the strongest source but it is an interview and not RS. A search did not find additional sources. WP:TOOSOON, GNG fail.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:40, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm not going to make an official argument one way or another, since I oversaw the class that made this, but I do want to note that I have expanded the article with various sources - specifically reviews for her work and coverage that calls it the best work of this or that year. There's a review by SciFiNow, another by CBR, one by Autostraddle, one via The Mary Sue (reviews by them are seen as generally OK), an IGN review, a short review by i09, and her work as been highlighted as part of the best of the year by The Comics Journal and The Verge. We could justify an article for her graphic novel What is Left, which she did solo, and for Gotham Academy /Lumberjanes crossover, for which she did the artwork. Maybe the notability isn't as overwhelmingly solid as it could be, but it's definitely there. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  19:15, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, I'm of the mind that interviews can show notability for a topic depending on where they are published. It's just that the claims made in the interview are primary. For example, the artist was interviewed by the Los Angeles Times, which is a pretty major publication that doesn't interview just anyone, so the fact that the LAT thought that Valero-O'Connell was major enough to interview should be seen as a sign of notability. That does need to be given some weight. (I'm ambivalent about the VICE source as reliable, as they do gonzo journalism. Because of that, I'd see it as purely primary.) ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  19:23, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * the LA times actually does interview anyone they want... it's a newspaper. The LA Times item is not RS, it's an interview.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:30, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I checked out the sources and I haven't really changed my mind, CBR, Autostraddle, The Mary Sue, IGN, i09,  are contributor pieces and not from staff. The top 30 from TCJ comes also from a contributor who says "I will happily review any comics sent to me. I especially like to review minicomics." and who starts his list with "The usual caveats apply here, as I've not read a bunch of key short-form comics from 2016" so is making this list a proof of notability? The Verge list also comes from a contributor who has made this one post since joining. The SciFiNow review was not written by a staff memeber either. I don't see any of these showing that she meets any of the criteria in WP:NAUTHOR. The LA times is a reliable source but this Interview has no critical comment whatsoever about the subject and as per WP:INTERVIEW "anything interviewees say about themselves or their own work is both primary and non-independent. If it's primary and non-independent, our guidelines make clear that it does not contribute to notability.". Just because the LA times has published an interview with this person doesn't automatically make her notable especially as it was a joint interview with a more notable person. For an interview to help towards notability the interviewer has to be a recognised journalist as it says on the interviewer's profile she is a "Web producer working in entertainment for the Los Angeles Times. She helps provide digital content for the Arts and Entertainment sections and has also written for the Travel, Books and Images sections. A Long Beach native, she graduated from UCLA" There is no mention of her being a journalist or having a degree in journalism. Dom from Paris (talk) 11:06, 4 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep per new sources added. The LA Times is WP:RS. EDIT: Satisfies the GNG. ♟♙ (talk) 01:54, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree that the LA Times is a reliable source. An interview is however not a reliable source, per WP:RS. They also interviewed the leader of the LA Janitor's union, a foster father who takes in terminally ill children, neither of whom are notable by our standards.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:34, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:RS does not even contain the text "interview". Please explain where the RS guideline states that an interview, conducted by a reporter and published in a major, mainstream news outlet, is not reliable. The false equivalencies you provided RE: the janitor and the foster father are irrelevant to this AfD. ♟♙ (talk) 02:31, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It's plainly clear, and widely accepted at AfD, that interviews are not reliable sources for determining notability. The very nature of an interview means the reporter is not independent form the subject: they have to get up close and personal with the subject, and the resulting report often contains large swaths of text that are quotations in the voice of the subject. Thus, not independent of the subject. But i think you know this already. "The janitor and the foster father" are good examples to rebut the idea that being written about in the LA times is a selective honour that automatically confers notability. Sorry if you can't see that. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 10:36, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It's plainly clear, and widely accepted at AfD, that interviews are not reliable sources for determining notability. - Where at WP:RS does it say interviews conducted by a reporter representing a RS, and publishing IN said RS, are unacceptable as RS? Is a regular news article that contains direct quotes from a subject of the article also not a RS? Or just one that contains several or more direct quotes? Is this noted in the relevant guideline? I am simply not finding it. ♟♙ (talk) 22:40, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:23, 6 December 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete - I do not think subject passes notability guidelines. Skirts89 (talk) 20:53, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   09:38, 13 December 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.