Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lilia Tarawa

Lilia Tarawa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

WP:BLP1E only notable in regards to Gloriavale. Most of the stuff not in regards to Gloriavale are from promotional pieces and Tarawa herself. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:36, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Most of the sources are neither reliable nor independent. They are full of primary sources written by the subject or from unreliable blogs. Ibjaja055 (talk) 21:37, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Christianity, and New Zealand. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:36, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Women. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:13, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There's enough here to show GNG. She's written a book that Martin van Beynen has called "bestselling". It created a lot of publicity, for example, John Campbell interviewed her for 10 min on Radio New Zealand. She gets keynote speaking slots and, whilst that's nothing unusual, it is unusual when Stuff reports on that. She's been invited to give a talk at TEDxChristchurch and it takes quite something to get invited to TEDx. The pieces by Kurt Bayer (NZHerald; based in Christchurch), Eleanor Black (Stuff), and Now to Love (which belongs to Are Media) go into plenty enough depth to fulfil the criteria of three independent reliable sources. And all those sources are in the article already. All up, that's an easy keep. Schwede66 04:23, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The Waikato Times piece is a promotional piece for the business awards. The Now to Love piece is just her interview with Women's Daily. The other Stuff piece is also a promotional piece.

  This is the same for most of the refs, they're either promo pieces or interviews about Gloriavale. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:20, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep plenty of media coverage from reliable outlets here to establish GNG. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 20:59, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  There is a lot of media coverage but it is promotional/non-independent.

  Refs 1-4 are Tarawa herself, they shouldn't be used in the article except in limited aboutself uses, let alone go to notability.

  Ref 5, supplied piece from the festival she appeared at.

  Ref 6, women's day interview

  Ref 7 is about Cooper's conviction and just drops a promotion for her book in it... which is odd. Bit of coverage here but not much and it is still in relation to Gloriavale.

  Ref 8 same coverage but more blatantly promotional this time

  Refs 9 and 10 have the exact same wording as refs 7 and 8 which makes me believe this is some promotional thing sent out to papers, that or they just simply copied the Herald, either way the refs adds nothing to notability.

  Ref 11 is a promotional piece.

  Ref 12 is a promotional interview

  Ref 13 is an interview

  Ref 14 is another interview that involves promoting the book

  Refs 15-16 are reprints of Herald refs mentioned earlier

  Ref 17 uses same wording as the other promotional pieces

  Ref 18 is a promotional interview

  Ref 19 is a promotional interview from women's day and the same ref as 6.

  Ref 20 isn't promotional or an interview but very brief coverage (3 lines) as part of her grandfather's death

  Ref 21 is an interview

  Ref 22 is from Tarawa herself

  Ref 23 is a promotional piece for the Matamata business awards

  Ref 24 is a broken url but it is a very brief interview

  Refs 25-27 are interviews

  Ref 28 is promotional

  Ref 29 opinion piece and it provides little coverage anyhow

  Ref 30 is brief coverage of the book

  Ref 31 is dead but appears to be a blog from an unreliable source

  Ref 32 is about someone else's death

  Ref 33 is the exact same as ref 32.

  Ref 34 is the same as 9, 9 is presumably a reprint of it. Contains the exact same sentences used in the other promotional pieces

  Ref 35 is about Gloriavale but suddenly just drops in the same promotional content about Tarawa's book seen before.

  Ref 36 is a radio interview, not even an RS.

  Ref 37 is a podcast interview.

  Ref 38 is a promotional piece for some event she was invited to

  Ref 39 is another piece on Gloriavale that just suddenly includes the same promotional content as else where, it is really odd and I cannot see a reason for it other than being sponsored/paid for it

  So yes, there is a lot of media coverage, but little of it is independent, most of it is from the same source, and plenty of it is promotional. The fact that two identical articles are used as a reference right after each other just looks like COI/Paid editing with refbombing so it looks notable. The user who wrote most of this article is now blocked for copyvios but from looking at his contributions I think he may have been a paid editor. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:22, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:55, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Schwede66.-Gadfium (talk) 23:25, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete, or maybe easier, rescope (retitle) the article to represent coverage of her book. None of the sources appear to be doing any fact-checking, and are covering her story as though it were independent reporting, so functionally what they are covering is her story, and most closely her book. Ultimately, media coverage of her herself most resembles something like coverage WP:VICTIM, where as an individual she isn’t that notable, but for the fact that she was the centre of some event, and then wrote it all down and sold the story. Reading that guideline: Outside of her book, or her story, obviously there isn’t some higher-level event-centred article to incorporate her into, and so if we are to just keep the article as is (not an absolutely awful outcome, per my “weak” !vote), her testimony, which should have lead to an article about her own life and experiences, just becomes a page about her. Not optimal, given how much we have to rely on her as primary sourcing, but there is clearly secondary reporting on her talking about her story/book. — HTGS (talk) 23:46, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]