Contents

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nelly Coneway

Nelly Coneway[edit]

I think this is an autobiographical entry, judging from the text on the image uploaded by User:Nelly06, whose sole article this is, so delete for that reason, regardless of questions of encyclopaedic merit Staffelde 00:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for reason given.Staffelde 00:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. No no no. Just because someone creates an article about themselves does not automoatically mean it should be deleted. This woman is a published author, and as such should be kept. She even appears on Amazon!Batmanand 01:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'll find that WP:AB means precisely that self-written articles SHOULD be deleted, with a microscopically small number of exceptions. I am aware of her status as an author, which is why the article is nominated here for discussion instead of having a "speedy delete" tag for vanity on it, but regardless of who she is, my understanding is that she shouldn't have written the piece herself. Staffelde 01:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(See below for my reply) Batmanand 01:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. A TV journalist and published author with books at Amazon is an obvious keeper. Vanity is neither a CSD nor a criteria for deletion in my book. This is wikipedia-anyone can edit an article and POV issues are dealt with through editing. -- JJay 01:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can only repeat, WP:AB - or are you in WP:IAR mode?Staffelde 01:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AB states that the practise is "strongly discouraged", not prohibited. The notability criteria are policy, which have been argued over for a very long time, and are now roughly equivalent to a consensus. If you want to change that, there is a lively discussion going on here, which you are more than welcome to join (and thus change AfD policy). But until then, I would urge people to keep and improve. Batmanand 01:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, WP:AUTO can be fixed. The fact that her principal claim to fame is being a published author, but that her books are published by a vanity press, is harder to fix. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 13:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Autobiography is difficult to prove and its discovery is not really the optimum role for editors. We are not detectives. Furthermore, the autobiography guidelines are not policy and do not mandate deletion or AfD (for evidence see our non-deleted article on the founder of this project). While I do not think autobiography is a good idea, it has no relevance for me in AfD debates. -- JJay 02:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Detectives or not, evidence below establishes autobiography. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 18:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See above where I said the issue has no relevance for me. If this is still unclear, please review all my comments on this page. On a side note, given your concerns with vanity and autobiography, is there any good reason for the six Union Jacks on this page? -- JJay 21:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ihave reviewed all your comments on this page. It remains the fact that (1) the Sofia Echo article "about" her relegates mention to a trailing paragraph and does not actually support the claim to notability as a "popular" TV host,(2) the books are self-published with no evidence of significance or sales and (3) the subject scores around a dozen unique Google hits, half of which are adverts for her books. You have decided you want this article kept, which is your prerogative, but there is absolutely no indication that she passes WP:BLP, which makes this a vanity autobiography, exactly as stated; the facts in this article originate with someone who says of herself that "Nelly Coneway is one of the most talanted and respected Bulgarian journalists in America". About half of what she posted has been removed as unverifiable puff. Of course none of those things individually necessarily make a subject non-notable - Robert Gunther self-published his book and still has an article, not least because the book is cited as a primary source by many biographies of famous 17th and 18th Century scientists - but together they make a pretty strong case for genuine scepticism about the importance of this subject. And the union flags are there so I can find my comments in long interleaved discussions - but even if that were vanity it would be irrelevant as an argumentum ad hominem and because I have not created a Wikipedia article about myself. Your faith in the improtance of this person is touching, but in the absence of any verifiable evidence of importance, I think somewhat misplaced. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 14:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't see anything new in your comment so I can't change my opinion. Not even sure why you want to endlessly debate the same points. It's not that I have decided that "I want the article kept", it's because I believe that Ms. Coneway qualifies for inclusion and makes a nice addition to the encyclopedia. Also I think you should seriously reconsider this flag thing. Imagine what a mess it would be if everyone did that. -- JJay 02:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. An author of four books and television presenter meets WP:BIO in my book. I have rewritten the article but it still needs more work. Capitalistroadster 02:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I have removed the linkspam, added the fact that the books are self-published, and removed the Sofia Echo article as it's actually about her son (although the fact that it fails to corroborate the claim that she was a popular TV host may be significant). This article has started from the point of view of obvious vanity and ended up as marginal per WP:BLP since the major claims to fame appear hard to verify. If it was tagged for speedy as orignally written I'd have userfied it; if it was tagged for speedy as written now I'd probably have done the same. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 13:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep notable enough for an article, as long as it's all verified Prodego ^talk 02:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. WP:AUTO is an editing guideline, not a deletion policy. Jkelly 03:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete.... note that her books on Amazon have no rank. Her publisher is Infinity - a self publishing house. The buy books on the web (BBOTW) site is associated with Infinity Pub, apparently a marketing arm for self-published authors. Note that the bios are from the BBOTW - and are probably self-authored. No independent verification of claims. No Ghits for Bulgarian National TV "hits" other than BBOTW bio. No verifiable notability. Does not appear to meet standards for authors (WP:BIO) —ERcheck @ 04:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:BIO. Appearing on Amazon is not enough rationale to justify an entry; ERcheck's point about self-publishing adds to the sense the subjkect is nn. Eusebeus 07:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, sufficiently notable as journalist and media personality. Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 09:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per arguments above. Jcuk 11:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Person could still be notable as a journalist, but I have to agree that non-ranked books on Amazon are not impressive. Any good vanity press or self-publisher will offer Amazon listings. So it's no indication of how good the book is nor how many people read it. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• (Further to above comments, particularly JJay's, while I grasp the point being made and while I agree that autobiography is not something to go deliberately hunting, my reading of WP:AUTO is nevertheless that the practice of creating one's own article, whoever one is, is STRONGLY discouraged. You are quite right to point out that "strongly discouraged" does not equal "totally forbidden" or "automatically deleted", but I think the guideline, if it means anything at all, must mean that there have to be unusually good reasons for allowing a self-created article to stand. I don't believe that in this instance there are unusually good reasons. This woman is not of sufficient stature as a journalist, author or "meeja" person to justify bending what is a very strong guideline. She comes in with no more than 57 Google hits, most of which are to self-promoting websites and duplicates. Ditto her publications, and her TV and journalistic ventures are significantly undistinguished. I just don't think her achievements are such as to merit bending what is quite a strong practice guideline.Staffelde 12:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]

• You are fully entitled to your interpretation, but try to maintain perspective. Guideline does not mean policy. This guideline mandates no action. It is a guideline for editing articles. Any article can be entirely rewritten. This is the case for many if not most of the offerings here. The "original sin" of an article's creation- in this case unproven I would point out- has no bearing. Lastly, I would assume that all guidelines are important to the people who care about them. When you repeatedly talk about a "very strong guideline" or "quite a strong practice guideline", I immediately wonder where I can find our "very weak" guidelines. -- JJay 13:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Did you check the books? The only English language book listed on Amazon is published by Infinity Publishing, a self-publishing company (i.e.vanity press). The two Bulgarian-language books are also published by the same publisher. So the claim to be a "published author" is weak in the extreme. The cited source from the Sofia Echo also is not actually about the subject, but about her son. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 13:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As long as you're going to declare that self-publishers are inherently non-notable, are you ready to nominate this musician for deletion because she has released all her albums through her own label? Monicasdude 18:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the nom's argument above. Are we discussing autobiography now or Ms. Coneway's achievements? She is discussed in The Sofia Echo story, which confirms her TV role in Bulgaria. I also tend to doubt you or anyone else has made an exhaustive search of Bulgarian language sources. -- JJay 14:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Self-publishers are not vanity by definition and being self-published does not automatically equal non-notability. A variety of famous authors self-published work for which they could not find a regular publishing house. It's the fact the book has no Amazon sales rank that should set off the alarm bells. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(readjust indents) Well, I am not saying she shd not be on the Bulgarian Wikipedia... But it seems from the Eng lang sites that she was not a major presenter, and does every TV presenter on every channel in the world automatically merit an article?

I would hate to see a duff article scrape through simply because I have blurred the reasons for deletion (now I am turning to Ignore All Rules...). This article was definitely begun by the subject, as is clear from the caption ("Me taken by my son" or something similar) on the image of the subject that User:Nelly06 uploaded at the same time as placing the initial article (see user contributions, of which there are VERY few). That would normally count as Vanity and be off straight away. In which connection, the following is from WP:VAIN: "The key rule is to not write about yourself, nor about the things you've done or created. If they are encyclopedic, somebody else will notice them and write an article about them." That seems fairly clear to me.

This lady has, it is quite true, a far more verifiable public profile than most, but the other information regarding her achievements from elsewhere is difficut to evaluate and borderline; and I am still think that autobiographical article + borderline significance should = delete. IF someone else thinks she is important enough, let them start it off again. (This is pretty much what JzG is saying below).

I am concerned that, if this is allowed to stay, it makes a sort of back-door precedent for borderline "semi-notables" to create their own entries and then rely on the force of inertia to keep them, whereas surely the trend of thought so far has been in the other direction. Staffelde 17:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Userfy and delete the redirect. The cited article is about her son and only mentions the subject oin the last para. This is clearly autobiography, I say userfy it and then let someone neutral create it if there is a demand. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 12:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep since the nominator's rationale is expressly rejected by WP:VAIN as grounds for deletion. Monicasdude 14:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• And what of the fact that the actual claims to notability are unverified (TV) and false (books are self-published)? If this was tagged as nn-bio it would probably be deleted (or userfied if it was a kind admin like me) - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 18:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• This is not a speedy. Not even close. If it was tagged as nn-bio and then deleted two mistakes would have been made. An assertion of "notability" is made, hence no speedy. -- JJay 18:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The purpose of WP:AUTO is to discourage non-notable people from writing about themselves. From the page: If your achievements, etc., are verifiable and notable, and thus suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, someone else will create an article about you sooner or later. So some people want to have it "sooner" rather than "later". What's the harm in that? If the article is verifiable and the person notable, we allow it to stay, regardless of who created it. So, is she notable? I'd say no, if not for the Bulgaria factor - she is likely notable in Bulgaria, so the cultural bias factor wins the article over for me. Turnstep 20:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete per JZG. I understand this is borderline, but I really doubt her notability and her relevance in the English wikipedia. If an article gets independently created in the future I might change my mind but for now, with autobio, self publishing and no clear indicator of notability I say delete. --kingboyk 21:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC) Changed to strong delete, after the vanity publishing discussion and further analysis of the Sofia Echo article. Also, this is not the Bulgarian wikipedia where she might have a case for notability. Too bad I split up from my Bulgarian ex though :( --kingboyk 21:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As per Staffelde. (Opes 21:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]
• Keep Per WP:BIO ComputerJoe 22:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. notability/verifiability OK. mikka (t) 23:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete Fails WP:BIO. What more needs to be said? FCYTravis 23:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and a half. Fails WP:BIO, and despite the screaming that WP:VAIN somehow doesn't apply here because she's a notable Bulgarian personality, it's still vanity. True, it's not a speedy, but are there many Bulgarians coming to en-wiki to read up on their TV personalities? RasputinAXP _{talk contribs} 23:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Self-published books? Writes for the "Bulgarian Echo" in LA? The whole "vanity article" kerfuffle is a red herring: it goes to motive, not to appropriateness -- as in, why else in God's name would anyone think this was worth an article? --Calton | Talk 00:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Should generally keep an author with hits on Amazon. —Brim 05:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Unless the books have no or stratospheric sales rank (these have none at all) and are puiblished by a vanity press (these are). It is trivially easy to get a book published by a vanity press, assigned an ISBN and added to Amazon. Not one single copy need be sold in order to achieve that. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 13:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I might vote keep, but I notice with great amusement that the original author didn't like other users cleaning up the (poor) text and thus blanked the page. Mercy killing. Ocicat 08:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Nelly06 blanked the page in this edit with the reason "Deleting page for false content". Stifle 15:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:BIO and WP:OWN. Stifle 15:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Self-published doesn't count. Let's face it, if her books were any good a publisher would have printed and distributed them for free. Pilatus 06:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, "popular in Bulgaria in the 1990s with her weekly TV Shows". Kappa 19:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• That's what she says about herself, sure. What to the reliable external sources say? The only cited on merely mentions that she was on TV at one time, does not say how popular those shows were, how prominent her role was within those shows, or indeed how popular she is. Which, in a newspaper article supposedly establishing her notability, seems to me like a glaring omission. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 20:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The Sofia Echo story says "David was born to an American father and a Bulgarian mother from Vidin". Doesn't sound like a famous TV star to me. You think they'd write about Jay Leno's kid having a "father from New Rochelle, New York"?! Read further down and it seems she presented the 'the Budo and Samurai sports show'. I'll leave you to ponder how popular that might be. --kingboyk 20:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Popular enough to be on national television, I assume. Kappa 22:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• The Sofia Echo article reads like the autobiographical entries. Perhaps submitted by the author herself. The Sofia Echo article refers to an award by GWB to the son. This is not notable. "Presidential" awards are routinely given to all levels of education - for example, the President's Physical Fitness Award. Students within all schools who achieve a certain level can receive these preprinted congratulations from the president; it is something that the schools can order. This may be the President's Education Award Program, which again can be ordered by schools. I suspect that this was submitted by the author. —ERcheck @ 22:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. —This user has left wikipedia 19:09 2006-02-05

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.