Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zelana Montminy


 * 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. Although listed several sources in their (very long) keep !vote, I did not find upon inspection anything showing notability under any guideline. Most of the other arguments ("is continuing to grow in notability", "This page has been active under Wikipedia’s guidelines for three years", etc) are not policy based. Randykitty (talk) 16:28, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Zelana Montminy

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Potential vanity page. Subject does not appear to meet WP:NBIO. She has written a book and sometimes writes articles (or comments in articles) online, but no indication of significance or significant coverage about her. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:19, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:44, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:44, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:44, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:44, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Argument against deletion
Keep The page was approved three years ago and has been active since then. In that time, the subject has grown in notability so I would think that if she met the notability guidelines then, there's no reason she shouldn't now. Especially when she has since released a book and grown in notability. That book was published by a major publisher (HarperCollins) and she is now a speaker for that publisher. The book was covered by publications with large readerships and continues to be discussed in connection with her career as a media personality (more on that below and throughout the article). Further, I believe this subject does meet Wikipedia's current notability guidelines. For Entertainers (which the subject could fall under), Wikipedia has the criteria that the subject: ''Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. ''

The subject has appeared in numerous multiple television shows on a recurring basis including nationally syndicated shows like The Dr Oz Show, The Today Show, Access Live and The Doctors. She's also appeared on numerous local (local being LA so a large market) and web-based programs. She has made and is making contributions to her academic field of psychology. She has been referred to in Psychology Today (an independent, neutral publication) as a "health and wellness expert in the field of positive psychology." Multiple other publications have referred to her as a leading expert in the field of positive psychology. She also meets the Academic notability criteria of ''The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity. ''

The subject consistently brings attention to the field of positive psychology through her work in the media (mentioned above and cited throughout the article).

She is currently developing curriculum for Pepperdine University and will soon join the university as an adjunct professor (proof of this can be provided via email as it has not yet been made public). She's already led a distinguished lecture series at Pepperdine. Additionally, Common Sense Media has asked her to join their Advisory Council and she has spoken at health-related conferences like this one hosted at UCLA (this is a PR link so obviously it won't be included in the article, but I wanted to showcase it here). I say all this to note that the subject both is a significant contributor to her academic field and is continuing to grow in notability within it and outside of it. I think to say that the subject simply sometimes writes articles is a bit reductive as she is featured in major publications that bring attention to her academic field of study. The Notability article states: ''For people, the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice" or "note" – that is, "remarkable" or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life. "Notable" in the sense of being "famous" or "popular" – although not irrelevant – is secondary. ''

I am grateful to user Calliopejen1 for their work in editing Wikipedia articles. They recently even rejected a new page I attempted to publish and I understand their reasoning for that one. However, for this one, they seem to be suggesting that because there is not coverage necessarily about the subject that the subject is not notable. In other words, they are focusing on whether or not the subject is “famous” or “popular" which as noted should be secondary in consideration of these articles. My argument is not that the subject’s page is justified because they are “famous” or “popular”, but rather that the subject makes significant contributions to her academic field through the media in which she is frequently working in and meets notability guidelines because of this. I could simultaneously make the argument that she is famous or popular through the fact that her book is well-regarded and sold well (it was No. 1 on Amazon’s Mental Health Hot New Releases) or that her work has endorsements from numerous noteworthy figures, but those are already in the article. This page has been active under Wikipedia’s guidelines for three years. It has never been deemed as not notable or inappropriate and I have yet to see a reason as to why that should change now especially as the subject has grown in notability. If there is verbiage in the article that makes it feel too much like a vanity page, I am happy to accommodate suggested edits as I do believe in maintaining neutrality and objectivity as an editor of this page and as a new member of the Wikipedia community. However, the argument being made with regard to Notability simply does not make much sense to me as the page was deemed notable three years ago and I see no real argument as to why that should not be the case now.

Once again, as a frequent user of Wikipedia - I greatly value the work the volunteer editorial team does here. If there are things that need to be done to address objectivity or neutrality in the article, I am happy to address them either now or moving forward. But I do object to the argument about the subject's Notability and hope that I have adequately addressed those concerns here. Sepcat5349 (talk) 18:12, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Just a note that the prior commenter is a paid editor for a Montminy company. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:13, 13 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Calliopejen1 Yes - thank you for pointing that out, and I mean that genuinely as I never intended to conceal it and hope that is clear from my user page containing the disclosure in accordance with Wikipedia's guidelines. Again, I greatly value objectivity and neutrality and disclosed my association so that any edits I made would be kept in check if necessary. I am happy and willing to accommodate anything that doesn't come across as neutral or objective - even if it means that I do not edit the page anymore. In keeping with that, I would be happy to restore the page to the state it was in before I made edits as I did not create the page nor did I make any edits on it until just recently.


 * Again, if objectivity or neutrality is the issue, I believe we can reach a solution that does not involve deleting the page. If the issue remains to be notability, then I hope that I have answered concerns over that effectively in my initial post.Sepcat5349 (talk) 22:31, 13 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete I really thought that this article would pass GNG. Despite the above claims of meeting NPROF, NENT, and NAUTHOR I think the article's subject does not satisfy any of those criteria (and to avoid my own wall of text am not going in depth as to why, but would be happy to do so on request). But the general claims made above seemed strong and I thought with some effort I could find sources that would go towards GNG. Searching multiple newspaper databases I found no coverage of her at all, not even for the book (for which a much better claim of notability can be made). I lost patience in my Google searches because her TV appearances are what come up. In the end she seems like some YouTube personalities - no doubt out there and being watched but doesn't satisfy our standards of notability. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:55, 13 June 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.