Talk:Monica Valentinelli

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

No consensus, 15 August 2018, see discussion.
no consensus, 5 February 2018, see discussion.

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group.

Role-playing games Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Role-playing games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of role-playing games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Role-playing gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Role-playing gamesTemplate:WikiProject Role-playing gamesrole-playing game
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women writers Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:

https://web.archive.org/web/20201026212153/https://sub-q.com/author-interview-monica-valentinelli/

Listing short stories

I just provided a list of short stories that this author has had published, along with magazines/publications and the year. This list was summarily deleted within a minute with a rationalization of, "We really don't need an entirely unsourced list of everything she has ever done."

Since mentioning the actual publications themselves apparently isn't enough of a source, I'll try to find additional sources. I honestly believe that providing a list of this author's works is worthwhile *and* well within the scope of Wikipedia.

Also, I assumed if content needed citation, an editor could simply flag it. Deleting an entire edit that was made in good faith seems a bit overzealous.

CapnPhantasm (talk) 20:31, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just re-added a list of short stories to this author's bibliography, along with a couple of novellas and a comic book. I included citations for all of them (multiple citations in some cases). I also changed the section heading from "Works" to "Bibliography" because it just seemed more appropriate. CapnPhantasm (talk) 14:27, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just re-re-added a very brief list of short stories and one novella, citing publishers' websites as sources. Hopefully this will meet the Wikipedia editors' stringent requirements for acknowledging that books exist. Looking up additional sources now so I can provide a proper list of this author's works. If editors feel the content needs additional sourcing, PLEASE TAG IT INSTEAD OF DELETING IT! Thank you. CapnPhantasm (talk) 16:55, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This page should not be speedy deleted because...

This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here) --Shadowflame39 (talk) 19:55, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently restructuring the page to reflect Wikipedia's standards. I'm still learning formats and all of the ins and outs.

Thank you

Because, as stated in the edit summary, it is not ubambiguous advertising (nor does the page meet any of the CSD).Newimpartial (talk) 23:08, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PROD removed

As I was starting to write in my edit summary, I removed the PROD as the article has ar least one source. Other sources should, of course, be added. Newimpartial (talk) 13:02, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Note the tag says RELIABLE source, and a link to the subject's own blog doesn't count. Hell, it's not even a source at all, period. So the tag goes back. --Calton | Talk 13:50, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Calton This only applies if there were *no* sources present to begin with which means BLPPROD can't apply. Every diff has had a source, whether they're reliable or not should probably be discussed in an AfD.CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 00:38, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chrissymad and Newimpartial: Bullshit. First, do you have difficulty with verb tenses? There are no sources NOW: whatever happened in the past is irrelevant since it's about the current condition of the article. Second, show me the sources that you claim were in there in the first place: all I see are links to works by the subject, which ARE NOT SOURCES and are certainly not RELIABLE SOURCES. Third, what part of the concept of "reliable sources", WHICH ARE REQUIRED TO REMOVE THE TAG, giving everyone problems?

Either 1) leave the tag or 2) make the fix required for the tag to be removed: those are your options. Do things properly or not at all. And no, readding the unreliable sources you claim were in there before is NOT a fix. --Calton | Talk 03:56, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Calton I'm going to advise you to stop the personal attacks and incivility and also re-read WP:BLPPROD. It states explicitly that there have to be no sources present during creation. There are sources and have been sources, crappy or not since it's original creation. If you feel it should be deleted, take it to AfD. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 03:58, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notability tag

I removed the notability tag that was added last year, and another editor (who has apparently not read the sources) reverted my removal. Rather than edit warring as this editor did with his misplaced PROD tag earlier, let's discuss. 01:55, 10 February 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newimpartial (talk • contribs)

A word of advice: get a refund on your mind-reading courses, because they're not very effective. Maybe spending some time with WP:GNG, WP:BLPPROD, and WP:RELIABLE instead would be a better use of your time. --Calton | Talk 02:42, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike Calton, I have read all the aforementioned, and also read the current version of the article and its sources. Remind me, which of us was edit-warring in support of their belief that they could BLPPROD an article that had sources in it? (What, Twinkle told you there were no sources or something??) Newimpartial (talk) 02:51, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]