- 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 Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-13 09:39Z
Non-notable fiction writer. An internet search verified that he wrote the books in question, and the article writer produced some good additional information, but I don't think he meets the notability guideline for authors. YechielMan 01:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - If as is, the article is more about the author's book than about him; the inclusion of material blatantly promoting the book ("back cover blurb"?) as well as prominent, gratuitous linkage to the author's website and online forum fall under WP:NOT (soapbox: self-promotion and advertising). Significantly revamping the man's bio and shifting focus away from the book would perhaps save things, but not as it stands now. Roadmr (t|c) 02:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - As I wrote the the thing, I suppose I should put in my two cents. I suppose it is true that the writer is 'non-notable' but then it is noted both in the article and in the publisher's information that his book has only been out since December of 2006. I am unaware of much info about him for the bio but I did have the book so that info is is properly sourced. When I learn more about him I will be glad to update the bio more. Also, I had intended to make an article for the book itself in due time. At anyrate, the core of my argument is that it isn't fair to single him out as 'non-notable' when he is so new and that wiki sourcing rules require me to focus on the material I have in hand. That would be the book. He already has reviews on Amazon.com that are favorable, so perhaps he won't be 'non-notable' for long. What's the harm? Delete it in 6 months if he turns out to be a nobody.
Straboandlivy 03:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The consensus seems to be that in such a case, it's preferable to recreate the article in 6 months after he wins the Pulitzer Prize rather than keep it here in case he becomes notable in the future. This is also a hedge against self-promotion and vanity, which this does not seem to be.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 06:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well that does seem to be a bit outlandish, don't you think? There are plenty of authors on wiki who are not Pulitzer Prize winners, and it seems to me that if you agree that this is not 'self-promotion and vanity' then you are actually employing the opposite argument: 'just in case it is self-promotion and vanity, we're going to delete the sucker.' Do I understand it correctly that if I were to email the man up and get some more biographical information to put in here this article could fly uncontested? The initial editor said the article was fine (thanks!) but it was notability that was his concern. It doesn't seem like both arguments should be able to fly at the same time. Straboandlivy 06:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The Pulitzer comment was a joke. But to your point, notability is the concern - however, I'm not sure what the "other" argument you refer to is. If the article is in really bad shape, that is not a call to delete it; also, calling up the author to get biographical info is a no-no, as wikipedia requires third-party sources. The rule of thumb is, if you can't find a reference to someone in a reliable third party source, then he therefore does not meet the notability requirements.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 06:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yea I thought about the no independent research rule after I posted. The other argument was the 'self-promotion' charge that the other gent was making. I will investigate whether or not there are third-party sources available. I still wonder about that provision in this context as he is a new author. I'm not sure its worth belaboring the issue. And I got the joke. ;) There are all sorts of obscure authors on wiki, which is why I didn't respond with humor. Well, off for now. Straboandlivy 07:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Straboandlivy! as others have pointed out, the issue here is that Mr. Horvath is still not such a well-known author and it appears as if the article about him is attempting to use wikipedia to boost his internet profile. I believe that first the author has to gain notoriety and reputation, and only then perhaps should the wikipedia article be added, as notoriety is a requirement for biographical articles on living people (and dead people too, at that). A very clear example I found is Eoin Colfer, author of the Artemis Fowl books; altough the first one was published in 2001, nobody bothered to add an article about him until mid-2003 (see here and it's not even the earliest version). Notice, too, that he is listed as having written the Artemis Fowl series, which by then was presumably successful enough to prevent information about the author being questioned since he was already notorious, like what's happened here with Mr. Horvath. As for the "amazon-o-meter", it's also not enough to have the book sold on Amazon; for example, John W. Creswell and Harry Wolcott, both authors of major books in the field of qualitative research which are sold on Amazon and presumably have a respectable level of sales, are not mentioned anywhere on wikipedia. In a nutshell, the correct order of events is first for Mr. Horvath to become a successful author in his own right, and then for someone to add an article about him in here. If there's interest about the person the article will thrive, be added to and will eventually turn into a fine biography. Otherwise it will end up in AfD again, which would be quite unfortunate. Roadmr (t|c) 15:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete since the author appears to acknowledge that it is too soon, there are insufficient secondary sources, and the writer's first book has only been out a couple of months (and has not set the world alight). Guy (Help!) 08:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Guy. Of course the third-party sources provision applies, as WP:RS is a foundational policy of Wikipedia in the first place, and new authors especially should only be included when they exist, to prove that they are notable. Obscure, by the way, is not the same thing as un-notable. --Dhartung | Talk 10:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless sourced and referenced i.a.w. WP:BIO by end of this AfD Alf photoman 15:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete NNDUBJAY04 17:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per article creator acknowledging this author is NN. Fundamental Dan 19:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep He's published a series of books. He seems notable enough to be here. --Lee Vonce 20:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Recreate later (no set date) based on more press coverage/sources turning up for him in mainstream or genre press. Don't salt it. - Denny 00:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The article needs work but the subject matter is notable. Aye-Aye 23:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete now, recreate later if notability reached Remember, you can create articles later on. If somebody so desires, they could write up a whole new article on this guy and post it again next week. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 19:30, 11 February 2007 (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.