Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ed Howdershelt (2nd nomination)

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. Delete rationales of Xanderliptak, Aymatth, Libstar, and even Evil saltine, are clearly pertinent. One statement remains in closing this as delete, "After six years, if this is all that is present, it shows there is no notability." I'm playing to the gallery, but what the heck. Well said Xanderliptak. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 05:43, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Howdershelt

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

Does not meet the general notability guideline. This article was previously deleted in 2004 for a similar reason and then recreated in 2008. I think it is better to put it through AFD once more than to speedy delete it, since WP policy has obviously changed quite a bit since 2004, and the article has existed for a couple years (a few more days won't do much harm). Evil saltine (talk) 01:38, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. After six years, if this is all that is present, it shows there is no notability. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 07:32, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP . According to the guideline on Notability, the article requires verifiable evidence.

Ed Howdershelt has been a best-selling author in a number of online bookstores during the last few years, including FictionWise (a Barnes and Nobles company) and MobiPocket (Independent e-book store with a proprietary e-book software), and during the last decade has been appearing more and more in the web as an author worthy of note. An internet search generates a large number of hits from independent e-book websites, and I propose that more are not present simply because he does not do much promotion besides “word of mouth” by his readers or his participation in different conferences and events. As a former intelligence operative, Mr. Howdershelt is limited in the information he can divulge, and has been trained to avoid public notoriety, yet this does not detract from his effect on the science fiction genre, as more and more readers (and authors) take note of his style and ideas.

Mr. Howdershelt counts with over a dozen volunteer proof-readers (six of which are very active, even reviewing published texts for typo’s and other inconsistencies). If you need a list of these volunteers for validation purposes, you may start with me, Mr. Manuel F. Perez, MPA, CAMS, (New York City). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manperez (talk • contribs) 23:27, 25 September 2010 (UTC) — Manperez (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Reliable sources are required to support these claims. Also, Wikipedia does not publish original research, meaning that personal knowledge of a subject is not acceptable as a source. Evil saltine (talk) 02:04, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only sources appear to be self-published apart from ones on his meme Four boxes of democracy, which does seem quite widely used. But the meme is not enough to justify an article on the author. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:08, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete noting the big push by the single purpose editor. fails WP:BIO for lack of reliable third party sources. LibStar (talk) 07:39, 28 September 2010 (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.