Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Keith (2)

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. When the strength of the arguments - as versed in Wikipedia policy (or otherwise) - are taken into account, I believe that there is concensus here to delete this article. - Daniel.Bryant 05:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scott Keith

This biography of a living person contains no reliable sources whatsoever, and is home to a variety of speculation regarding his personal motivations, etc. I requested that reliable sources be added more than two months ago, but none have been forthcoming. There is no evidence that this topic meets Wikipedia:Notability or Wikipedia:Notability (people), and Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons are no where near being met. —Centrx→talk • 16:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• FYI, article kept after September 2005 AFD. --Dhartung | Talk 17:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• -***½ Delete - as an ex-wrestling fan, I find Keith's breakdown of wrestling shows are fun to read, but the nom is correct in there's no reliable sources about Keith himself. Only one of his books appear to have been reviewed in a reliable source ([1]), and the man himself has received nothing in terms of coverage in independent reliable sources. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 19:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep as the author of four published books through what appears to be a reputable publisher, the Citadel imprint of Kensington Books and a writer for a professional magazine, Fighting Spirit magazine. One of his books is reviewed on Slam Sports and a number of internet-based stories, and is used as a reference by The Sport Journal; there are mentions of his books in an article from The Daily Texan... there's some play for his published works. The article does need work, though, as it stands, and some sources would be useful. I think the problem is that as a writer about a specific topic like pro wrestling, it's difficult to get reviews outside of the wrestling community, and I'm not sure if we consider places like 411mania as reliable enough sources to work with. Tony Fox (arf!) 07:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
  • None of these are about the person; some of them are not even about the book, just evidence that someone referenced it. All of these only trivially mention Scott Keith. You would need to make an entire encyclopedia article about Scott Keith out of these sources, as any unsourced or poorly sourced information would need to be removed, which is not possible from the ones you have listed. —Centrx→talk • 07:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Mostly I was pointing out that he does squeak up against the "published author" bit in WP:BIO, noting that there are multiple references to his books - and I do point out that he gets far more play within the wrestling community than on a larger scale. This is where the 'weak' comes from. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't meet even the minor standard in WP:BIO. There are not "multiple independent reviews or awards"; there is only one review, in a rather unreliable source. —Centrx→talk • 21:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I would disagree that Slam Sports, on Canoe.ca, is an unreliable source; it's run by one of Canada's largest media conglomerates. I point to the reviews on 411mania and other wrestling-related sites as other reviews. But, frankly, my main concern is with sites that should be considered reliable being discounted at this point, so hey, whatever. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, that's one possibly reliable source, and it does not alleviate problems of Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, which WP:BIO does not supercede. —Centrx→talk • 00:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Keep Why bother with keeping Wade Keller, Dave Meltzer, Dave Scherer, etc. 68.54.163.153 20:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment I don't see how you can even put Dave Meltzer and Scott Keith in the same league. Without Meltzer's monumental influence there wouldn't even be a place for Keith to do what he does. 49erInOregon 13:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Keep Everything on Wikipedia has and deserves and article. 68.54.163.153 21:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC) struck duplicate !vote

• Keep, Keith is a published author and a pretty influential columnist. McPhail 23:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
  • That is not sufficient to warrant an article on Wikipedia, especially an article on a living person. The article must be substantiated by reliable sources. —Centrx→talk • 00:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep On principle alone. Seriously. How backwards is Wikipedia? Why is it that there is 11 seperate articles just of LISTS of fictional characters from Dragon Ball Z for example, and literally hundreds of articles on all of these individual characters, and then someone like Scott Keith, a notable real-life published author, gets put up for deletion. People seem to lose sight of the big picture here. Jamestrepanier 18:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  • The reason is there are an abundance of sources that list these fictional characters. Also, that "Scott Keith" is a real-life person is part of the problem; unsourced inaccuracies in an article about fictional characters have no effect on the life of a living person. —Centrx→talk • 01:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Scott Keith does not respect facts or fact-checking, so his presence on any place founded in knowledge and objectivity is unwarranted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.61.191.81 (talk) 19:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

I don't think a personal opinion of Keith or the quality of his work is relevant to whether or not he is notable enough for inclusion to Wikipedia. I might think the same about Bill O'Reilly, but that is hardly reason to delete his article. Jamestrepanier 21:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable. Manager Of Champions 21:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, he doesn't really have talent. Was just lucky. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.109.217.111 (talk) 23:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

• Delete, nn internet blogger, yeah, maybe he's published some books, but they didn't sell all that well or were mass-produced. Just because you can publish a book does not always entitle you to an article. Booshakla 06:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

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.