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 (non-admin closure). The consensus of the discussion is that the novel meets WP:BK C3 and C5. Darkspots (talk) 00:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Celia en el colegio[edit]

Celia en el colegio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Fails WP:BK. Minor tie to the television series is already covered in Celia (TV series), which was based on the whole series, not a single individual book. The books themselves have no individual notability, no major coverage in third-party reliable sources, and the article is completely unreferenced, despite extraordinary claims of being a great success, and consist primarily of plot summary and a blow-by-blow comparision to the three episodes. AnmaFinotera (talk) 23:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• An argument could be made that WP:BK C3 would apply even if only part of the television series is adapted from the book, as the wording's abiguous. In any case, the series clearly passes WP:BK C3, so at worst the article should be merged into an article about the series as a whole, and not deleted. Given the claims of popularity, though, it would surprise me if references supporting the notability of the individual books aren't available in Spanish. Withholding !vote till others have a chance to work on that. —Quasirandom (talk) 23:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I note, btw, that even the English langauge sources in a Google Books search are highly suggestive, including one indicating the series' influence on the next generation of women writers in Spain. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• If that's the case, then perhaps a merge to a single article on the series? AnmaFinotera (talk) 16:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I wouldn't object to a merge, though at this point I strongly suspect each book can ultimate sustain an article on its own. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 23:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 23:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Celia classics by Elena Fortún, an important icon of Spanish culture, part of millions of childrens' lives are not eligible for the Wikipedia? Alright, I guess there Harry Potter articles should go out next. Do whatever. T.W. (talk) 01:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You call them classics, say they are an important icon, etc, but neither this nor the other article actually shows this. They are almost entirely plot point and your own original research. Where are the sources? If they are classics, then there should be tons of reliable sources you can use to give them proper articles. As it is now, from the articles themselves, and your own comments on the template deletion, you've basically been making articles with plots and your own thoughts on each book as you can acquire them. AnmaFinotera (talk) 01:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, delete everything. Who gives a damn, not me. T.W. (talk) 01:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem. I give a damn, so there. Now get back here and help get these articles into wikiworthy shape. And AnmaFinotera, stop biting. They may be a bit heavy on the plot, but so are most book stubs. —Quasirandom (talk) 03:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's been blocked for insulting me in beyond inappropriate ways and continued personal attacks on his talk page that sent him to AN/I, blocking, and user talk page protection. Also, I was not biting. I gave the user a lot of help on the TV article, a lot of which dealt with the same issues. AnmaFinotera (talk) 04:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep need to avoid recentism and systemic bias. Book is of notable author. Not a tie-in as it antedates the TV material. Criteria 3 and 5 look likely to be fulfilled to me. Book sourcing can be difficult online due to wading thru online booksellers. Should notify spanish wikiproject methinks. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Has nothing to do with either "recentism" nor "systemic bias." If author is notable, why does she have no article either? Online searches for information about her almost all book store listings. If she's notable, please actually show it rather than just say it. Give the sources and fix the articles. Also, from above del sorts, Spanish project was notified. FYI, though these are claimed by the creator to be "classics" and important to Spanish literature, there are no articles for any of the Cecil books on the Spanish Wikipedia. There is a single very brief article on the television series and a brief one on the author. AnmaFinotera (talk) 04:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of online content means little in this case - many older notable folks lack articles - much of the online info on various notable people is meagre at best and there are requests all over for various redlinks. Doesn't worry me. I have this hope we can do better research and sourcing than just googling for a few minutes. I have found books essential for all my FAs and an increasing number of my GAs too. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but can you do the same here is the question. Its not enough to just say "I'm sure sources exist" but they must actually be provided to point out the notability of this specific book. AnmaFinotera (talk) 05:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep given the sources provided at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Celia en el mundo and others found through Google Books demonstrate the historic notability of the author, thus passing WP:BK C5, and C1 as well. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - what offered, and a small personal enquiry in google books, convince me that this book clearly passes WP:BK C5.--Aldux (talk) 23:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – A series of books published for over 70 years and converted into a TV series appears notable. This article is in need of more citations, especially ones establishing its notability and importance. — λ (talk) 20:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also appears to meet criterion 3 of WP:BK, having been made into a TV show widely televised in Spain. — λ (talk) 20:47, 23 May 2008 (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.