- 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. MBisanz talk 02:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- JS Huntlands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
This article appears to be written by the actual person (see username of creator and book cover image file), meaning a conflict of interest. The article fails notability for an author as she hasn't been subject to Multiple independent reviews. External links to buying the book have been removed as spam. DFS454 (talk) 13:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ADDENDUM This article contains so much original research that if it was removed there would be hardly anything left. Remember the criteria for inclusion is verifibility not truth see wp:ATT--DFS454 (talk) 16:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. CoI is not a reason for deletion. "Huntlands is currently taking part in interviews. She has been in the newspapers and on live radio shows." implies that multiple references exist, and three radio appearances are listed. Possibly not a great book and the article needs copyediting, but I think it squeaks by. -- Eastmain (talk) 16:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The book has only just been published so I think with publicity in Wales (swanseasound) and heartfm in the midlands there is coverage. I have also found copies sold in New Zealand which I feel should be added on to the artical. JS Huntlands (talk) 15:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Saying it's been talked about on Heart FM is not enough. Can you provide a web link to a transcript? Most of the "references" you added were just external links to buy it. Which is against policy--DFS454
(talk) 16:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)1:authorhouse/publisher September 2008[reply] - KEEP
is this ok? --JS Huntlands (talk) 16:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I truncated the so called "references" as it was a very long unformatted series of spam links to buy the book. The list cn be viewed here --DFS454 (talk) 16:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Well, not really. Your own website is not OK and listing of the book on booksellers websites are not OK. However, the Burton Mail article[1] is good because it is directly about you by an independent, third-party,reliable source who thought you were worth writing about. Got any more like that? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP. JS Huntlands is waiting on interviews with derbyfm RAM FM. She is also waiting on aa interview conducted by The Loughbrough Echo. Please keep this artical for another few weeks and watch the 'third partys' add up. Now added 4:Heart106 Feb.2009
5:Loughbrough Echo 2009 6:Derby FM 2009 7:RAM FM 2009 8:Measham Messenger 200882.19.176.162 (talk) 09:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment AFD is not a vote please do not "vote" twice whilst logged out. "While the third partys" add up? Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball. And not adhereing to this seems like you are using it for self promotion. --DFS454 (talk) 10:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This doesn't even come close. If all there is is an interview in a local paper about the upcoming book, that is not enough. If there are reviews about the book those would be relevant. But this isn't simply about finding an article that mentions it. It has to be notable on top of that. The notability has to exist, and then articles are used to demonstrate that it does. The book is available on Amazon in the UK, so that bodes well, but from what's listed here, I'm not seeing enough. Yes WP:COI is not a default reason for delete, but it is strongly discouraged. Also, posting large unformatted lists of links is not helpful. Pick a few good ones and post them with proper links. Shadowjams (talk) 09:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP. Please help me so the page can be kept82.19.176.162 (talk) 10:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I think this is a good example of why writing your own biography on Wikipedia is discouraged. The article suffers from most of the problems outlined in WP:Yourself. The notability of the subject has been questioned, there's lots of original research, and the article fails to maintain a neutral point of view. Due to the article's tone, I feel that it may also be questioned whether the article was written with promotional intent. decltype 15:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Cant you delete what is not to be used on the artical so as the page can stay?82.19.176.162 (talk) 11:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC) KEEP please do NOT delete I even added This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Please improve this article if you can. (February 2009)in hope that somebody might help me to meet wikapedia instructions. 82.19.176.162 (talk) 14:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note As I'm sure you've noticed, the attention that has come from this debate and the cleanup tags have led other users to the article and they have improved it. Personally I have done a fair number of edits, added the infobox, etc. However the issue being discussed here is not as much about the style but about the article's topic (although it would be naive to say that the style of the article doesn't influence editor's opinions about the topic). Within the Wikipedia world there is nothing new that can be done to increase a topic's notability, other than to add WP:RS to the article.
- I strongly suggest that you take just a few minutes to read through this for information on what needs to be added to this page. I also strongly suggest that you browse, and use a markup reference when writing on wikipedia. I've noticed you've been trying to add references to some of the fact templates, but the format you're using isn't recognized by the wiki engine and as a result it shows up in bizarre ways on the main page. The above link should show you the wiki format for these tasks. Shadowjams (talk) 19:43, 9 February 2009 (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.