Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emunah La-Paz (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 delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:39, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Emunah La-Paz

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NAUTHOR Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 08:40, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 08:40, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 08:40, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Her only claim to fame is, as far as I can see, her books. Worldcat has no results for "Emunah La-Paz". It does list Chocolate Burnout by Vicki L. Hubbard, which I assume to be the same person. That book is held in two libraries worldwide. It is published in Glendale, AZ by Hubbard Small Press. This may not be coincidence: that press has published a total of three books; all are by Vicki L. Hubbard. Worldcat has no record of Why Do Married Men Cheat With Unattractive Women? or of Memoir of A Jaded Woman: Tainted Love. Nor can I find any trace of Say What: The Black Butterfly Series, but that may be a failure on my part – there is a Black Butterfly Series with two books by Nina Michelle. One of them is published by CreateSpace. Note: I've not bothered to check the LoC for these titles, on the assumption that WorldCat scrapes that content along with everything else; if that's a wrong assumption please let me know and I'll do further research. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:28, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Justlettersandnumbers the creating editor was Vhubbard which is an unlikely coincidence. That editor states This page is also professionally updated on their talk page. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 23:51, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The creating editor removed the AfD Banner from the article. I have replaced it and issued a level 1 warning Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 00:07, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Regrettably the creating editor removed the AfD banner against. It has been replaced by the usual bot Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 09:51, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I believe we should interpret the lengthy comment above by Vhubbard as Keep. I have corrected its placement here and formatted it with precision as it was left. I have not otherwise edited it save for the unsigned template. I make no comment upon it. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 19:22, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That comment has now been redacted by an admin as disruptive. See the history tab Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 16:35, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing entitles you to have an artice on Wikipedia. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:42, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hemiauchenia Thank you for your comment. Was it your intention also to leave an opinion to keep or delete the article? There is obviously no requirement for you to do so, but your opinion will be welcome. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 20:07, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG. Perhaps it is just WP:TOOSOON, and should they one day produce notable work, obviously we can revisit this. Edwardx (talk) 19:56, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:AUTHOR -- rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 20:27, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NAUTHOR fail. Seems to have no significant following. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:31, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NAUTHOR. Comment by Vhubbard makes no arguments about notability, but does include a set of threats and claims to ownership, neither of which are really permissable. Furius (talk) 17:01, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ignoring issues regardng WP:COI, not enough independant coverage to merit a pass of WP:NAUTHOR, seems more like WP:PROMO. WP:TOOSOON at best. -Kj cheetham (talk) 21:50, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Should there be the provision of good quality references sufficient to verify notability I will have no hesitation in reversing my opinion. WP:HEY applies. Find and enter that information in the article and make sure that is noted in this discussion, please.
This discussion has been characterised as being in some manner racist on my own talk page and elsewhere by Vhubbard, the creating editor and the subject of the article. I have no interest in positive nor in negative discrimination for or against any race, nor any other group. My sole interest is in the quality of articles here. I see every reason for articles on people of all backgrounds here as soon as they pass WP:BIO (etc), and have approved many as an AFC reviewer. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 10:08, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Contributors to this discussion should be aware of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vhubbard Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 08:32, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources to support WP:NAUTHOR. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:48, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There does not appear to be enough independent sources available to establish notability. --Jayron 32 17:23, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per the sources below. --Jayron 32 17:52, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NVM. Delete because the cited reviews are not original Kirkus reviews, but part of a self-written promotional program also run through Kirkus. --Jayron 32 13:59, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep https://www.kirkusreviews.com/author/emunah-la-paz/ A reliable source gives information about this author, and has published reviews for two of her books four years apart from one another. Dream Focus 17:29, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's also a review of Why Do married men cheat with unnattractive women in The Seattle Post-Intelligencer, which I can't access due to GDPR. Is three book reviews each of a separate work enough to pass WP:NAUTHOR's The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work criterion? Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:47, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Having been able to get access via the wayback machine, it appears to be a reprint from Blogcritics, no idea if that makes a difference or not. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:04, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~ despite the subject's poor behavior on Wikipedia. Three of her books have been reviewed by reliable sources. I have added quotes from two Kirkus Reviews to the article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:08, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on new information about "Kirkus Indie". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:48, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Dream Focus, Cullen328, what makes you think that those "reviews" on Kirkus are reliable? I'm not 100% sure of the exact details, but we know that Kirkus is mostly user-submitted content of one kind or another. Specifically, reviews marked "Indie" are not by Kirkus reviewers, and anything marked "Pro Connect" is submitted by the author. Please see the page on how to Launch a Pro Connect Author Page; notice the word "purchase" in the url; or learn how, "by purchasing a Kirkus indie review, authors can have the opportunity to build some name recognition".

Cullen, the "review" you added with this edit is the same indie stuff I removed for good reason here; this "review" is also part of the paid-for Indie program; neither is an independent reliable source. Dream Focus, your "source" is a Pro Connect page paid for by the author or someone closely connected to her; it is not a WP:RS or anything like one. Jayron32, you might be interested in this. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:10, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Kirkus Indie has been discussed at RSN before and found unreliable and to not count towards notability due to being paid-for coverage, see [[1]] Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_330#Kirkus_Indie. The normal reviews that Kirkus produces are generally reliable and count towards notability. I didn't realise the reviews were Kirkus Indie, definite NAUTHOR fail. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:23, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I read Kirkus Reviews and it seemed like a legit publication. If you think they are not, I can modify my vote again. --Jayron 32 19:13, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jayron32 More important, I think, is for you to form your own views on the individual reviews on Kirkus Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 19:15, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have views. I read evidence and make my best assessment. When new evidence is presented, I take the new evidence into account and make any necessary changes. As I said, I read the Wikipedia article on the company and it passed the "sniff test" for me, I had never heard of it before a few hours ago; that is unsurprising however, of the billions of things in the world, many of them I have never heard of. But I am willing to learn about them. If you have reason to believe I am wrong, and that Kirkus is not a reliable publication, I will change my vote. --Jayron 32 19:18, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May I refer you ^^^^ to by purchasing a Kirkus indie review, authors can have the opportunity to build some name recognition please. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 19:22, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

From reading https://www.kirkusreviews.com/indie-reviews/, the author submits a request for a review and has to pay for it as we (at least $425). The author then can, if he/she likes the review, have it posted. Here's a source table evaluating that:

**Source assessment table:**
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Kirkus Indie reviews	Paid for by author, published only if author wants it to be	~ Written by third party, but results only available if favorable		✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 19:27, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) It reads: Our indie reviews are written by qualified professionals, such as librarians, nationally published journalists, creative executives and more. While we do not guarantee positive reviews, unfavorable reviews can be taken as valuable feedback for improvements and ultimately do not have to be published on our site. With our most popular review option priced at $425, you can receive an affordable book review that could generously boost your writing career.. So they don't sell fake reviews, still legitimate, not user submitted, but since they are only getting reviewed if paid to do so, that disqualifies it. It does say "Review Program: Kirkus Indie". Kirkus used to be considered a reliable source for book reviews, I not sure when they changed how they did things. Dream Focus 19:25, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They are still reliable for their normal book reviews, it's just that their indie reviews are not reliable. I agree that their pay for review program does sully their reputation somewhat. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:29, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and not at all clear that this self published author has won significant critical attention in reliable independent sources to pass the criteria at WP:NAUTHOR either. Theroadislong (talk) 19:23, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No signs of this being notable. Evidence seems to suggest the author created this promotional article, and added in a claim one of her books was a bestseller, but no evidence of that found anywhere. Only reviews are at two paid reviews and a blog which is probably not reliable for notability. Dream Focus 19:33, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per deleters. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 23:19, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.