Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Constantia Oomen

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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 no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 20:44, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Constantia Oomen

edit
Constantia Oomen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable writer who doesn't pass WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR . Other than her first book is out of print and the rest are self-published. I was unable to find any significant coverage of her in any language. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 19:57, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 20:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Schors (my publisher: http://www.schors.nl/product.php?ArtikelID=278
Further: what is against self publishing? Are you not aware that more and more authors are self publishing? We live in modern times, but some of you obviously don't?
Does a person only exist if known all over the USA? If been in Oprah Winfrey/Ellen? Please note that I am almost the only one in The Netherlands, Belgium who wrote extendedly about out-of-body experiences, and everybody in The Netherlands/Belgium who wants to read about it, will read my book, because I did four books on it? Further: there is English relevancy, because my first book is available in English too, just not yet officially published. My fourth book is in English available (and in Dutch). Still more: I am quite existent and there is this Dutch Wikipedia page about me. Why can't it exist in English? I live in the USA too.
It is too bad I have to speak up for myself, because it seems Wikipedia only is in favor of mass and bestseller writers. Please inform yourself better and let yourself be informed by your own medium (Wikipedia), instead of impoverishing it further.
Do not delete ThroughTheWindow (talk) 21:18, 20 February 2012 (UTC)Constantia Oomen[reply]
  • Comment To follow up on the above:
  • As I wrote on the article's talk page, what matters is the lack of verifiable and reliable independent secondary sources. If there is some significant coverage of you—in any language—that meets those criteria, then the article will be kept.
  • Regarding notability in Europe: if there's an article on you in nl.wikipedia, what sources is it based on? If they're solid sources, let's use them.
  • How many books you've sold isn't one of the issues here.
  • Regarding self-publishing: yes, I absolutely know that more and more writers are self-publishing (I'm in the writing field, after all). But I also know that WP guidelines make it clear that self-published works don't count towards notability—which is why I mentioned it here.
  • Regarding "out of print" — sorry, I jumped to that conclusion after looking at throughthewindowbook.com. Given that the book is offered there as a free download, and that the page says, "Are you a publisher and interesed in publishing THROUGH THE WINDOW?," I figured that it was reasonable to assume that the publisher no longer has an interest in selling it. That still seems likely to me, but I'll take your word for it that your publisher is fine with you both giving away product they're trying to sell and trying to find a replacement for them.
Overall, you're likely to have more success here if you try to learn something about the policies and guidelines, and work with people who are trying to help you rather call them names. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 01:10, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, please, then, dó delete it... Dutch writers are obviously not important. Well, hey, nothing can be done, it's such a small country, and so far away, don't you agree, just forget about it. Like I said, four books and they are all still in the market. "Door het Raam" ís well known, for the ones seeking European writers about OBE. You clearly don't want to know. Congratulations on being small minded.ThroughTheWindow (talk) 22:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC)Constantia Oomen[reply]
Please, don't bother anymore. Don't look at Google, it's only misleading, all these hits. I changed my mind, I insist you delete this Constantia Oomen page. I am not a notable person at all and my four books written in that small country (who ever heard of The Netherlands?) are of no importance at all. I do not want to be on the great Wikipedia, it would be an insult to all great bestseller writers! ThroughTheWindow (talk) 02:48, 21 February 2012 (UTC)Constantia Oomen[reply]
Further to this, the KIJK article looks absolutely fine for reference purposes. Although the linked version is just a stubby internet summary, the full article is five pages of respectable, researched New Scientist-equivalent printed material with a reference list, in which Oomen gets a similar level of coverage to familiar names like Ehrsson, featuring to some extent on every page. This again strikes me as a good indicator of notability. K2709 (talk) 15:50, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Did you just happen to have a copy of a two year old magazine lying around (pretty impressive if you did, btw!), or are those five pages online? I tried to find the full version myself, but I wasn't able to, although that might just be because I don't speak Dutch. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 04:55, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I found a comprehensive-looking set of tables of media interactions at her site, where there are separate links for each individual page of the article, and a reasonable supply of others too. Being somewhat stretched by Dutch myself it's too time-consuming for me to investigate in depth what fraction of these qualify as RS, but my gut feel is that of the 50 odd listings, half constitute sufficiently non-trivial coverage, which realistically might boil down to five or ten usable sources. This one is another possibility perhaps. K2709 (talk) 13:12, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think that comment is best interpreted as sarcasm. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 12:57, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Non-admin Comment She hasn't initiated an AfD for the Netherlands version. "Congratulations on being small minded" doesn't seem very good faith. K2709 (talk) 08:25, 25 February 2012 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Constantia_Oomen&oldid=1071160335"