Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rita Mestokosho

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 keep. Sandstein 14:41, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rita Mestokosho

[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)

WP:BLP of a writer and activist, not making or reliably sourcing any strong claim to passing our inclusion standards for writers or activists. As always, people are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they have jobs, but need to show some evidence of distinctions (e.g. notable awards) and/or enough media coverage about them to clear WP:GNG — however, the only notability claim even being attempted here is that she and her work exist, and three of the four footnotes are primary sources that are not support for notability at all. Even the one footnote that is to a real media outlet just goes "name of newspaper, date" without actually providing the title of the specific article being cited, so it's impossible to determine whether that source is about her or just glancingly namechecks her existence — and even if it is about her strongly enough to count for something, it still takes a lot more than just one such source to get a person in the door. And even on a Google search, I'm finding a lot of sources that mention her, but not a lot of sources that are about her for the purposes of getting her over GNG. Bearcat (talk) 13:34, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 13:34, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 13:34, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 13:34, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The fr.wiki article provides more sources but they equally don’t really support notability. The article in Ouest-France is here and there is also this article but unless someone can find something else it doesn’t look like a strong case. Mccapra (talk) 14:09, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Good finds, thank you! Of note: this is not the same Ouest-France article as the one which is referenced in the article. The dates don't match, and they are not on the same subject. Mottezen (talk) 00:16, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I admit this was a pretty sloppy translation of the (apparently very old) French article of the same name. However, I included enough sources on her in the article that it now definitely meets WP:GNG. Take a look at this documentary exclusively on her, The following bibliographies [1] [2] [3] [4], this thing on France Culture, and the article about her work being taught in Sweden Mccapra found. Mottezen (talk) 00:13, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

not relevant here but whenever you translate from another wiki you need to add the translation template in the talk page. I’ve added it just now. Mccapra (talk) 04:09, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, none of those links actually have anything whatsoever to do with whether she gets over GNG or not. People do not get over GNG on the basis of having "staff" profiles on the self-published websites of companies or organizations they've been directly affiliated with (e.g. writers do not get over GNG by having "our writers" profiles on the websites of their own publishers), or directory entries, or audio clips of them reading their own work in the first person. To count toward getting her over GNG, a source has to represent journalism or analysis about her and her work, written or spoken in the third person by somebody other than herself, in newspapers, magazines, literary journals or books that she is not affiliated with. And even the Ouest-France piece turns out to be a Q&A interview in which she's talking about herself in the first person, which means it also isn't a GNG-building source either (it would be acceptable for straight verification of facts if the article had already gotten over GNG on stronger sources, but does not help to get her over GNG in the first place.) Lainx's academic source is the only genuinely useful one that's actually been shown so far, and even then GNG still requires more than that. Bearcat (talk) 15:30, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What about this one: [5], a press article uniquely about her, and this one: [6] ? Surely those count as "journalism or analysis about her and her work".Mottezen (talk) 02:58, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I have added another reference and there seems to be quite some media coverage but mainly in French. She was also quoted by Nobel prize winner J. M. G. Le Clézio in a speech on universal literature. Her work was also discussed in the Oxford Handbook of Indigenous American Literature and the suject of an academic article (http://su.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2%3A989904&dswid=-9338) Lainx (talk) 04:34, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:16, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:GNG, since nomination the article has been considerably improved with sources that cover Mestokosho and/or her works. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:10, 10 May 2020 (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.