Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Richards (author): Difference between revisions

Stephen Richards (author) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Delete. Completely unreferenced BLP does not appear to meet notability requirements for biographies. Notability as a journalist has not been established. Works as an author are self-published, as article clearly states that the subject owns Mirage Publishing and publishes and markets his own books. The links are highly commercial. Article was created by Cosmicordering (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), who is clearly the subject himself. Yworo (talk) 14:10, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The article has been completely rewritten so all of the original author's text has gone. This person is well known and notable, because he has written a lot of books (some as sole author and some as co-author). A web search returns a huge number of webpages about him or his books. Snowman (talk) 19:10, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then by all means add some reliable sources so we don't have a completely unreferenced BLP, which in itself is grounds for deletion. Yworo (talk) 23:23, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I have found him mentioned on several more Wiki articles, so the "what links here" now numbers seven articles (excluding lists and dabs). A web-search leaves no doubt that he has written a lot of books, and I have referenced some of his books with isbns. It seems inappropriate to delete a page with seven "what links here" linked articles. Snowman (talk) 15:10, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of this addresses the fact that none of the biographical information is supported by sources. People who self-publish can be prolific, it doesn't make their books or themselves notable. See WP:BOOK for notability requirements for books: existence is not sufficient, multiple third-party reviews are required to show that a book is notable, just as multiple third-party biographical sources are required to show that a person is notable. Yworo (talk) 16:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see that you created those links by adding the subject's self-published books as references in multiple articles. However, self-published books may not be used as references. Books where the author also is the publisher means there is no external editorial control, which means that we cannot consider the books reliable. This is addressed in our reliable sources guidelines under the heading self-published sources, which clearly states that self-published sources can only be used to provide additional information about the book or author themselves, never for other subjects. Therefore I am removing this misuse of self-published books as references. The number of links to this article from other articles form no part of our notability requirements in any case. Yworo (talk) 16:44, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I rest my case to keep this article: I have significantly enhanced some of the sourcing details with in-line refs. Some of his books are published by John Blake Publishing, so these are not self-published books and can be used as references. The Guardian on-line says; "He is the author of several successful true crime books ..." Snowman (talk) 20:38, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 09:58, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Soundsboy (talk) 20:01, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]