Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Killingstone

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 10:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Edward Killingstone

The article claims that he was a pulp writer who failed to find much fame before his death, or after. That's an understatement, since Google finds no evidence of his existence or the existence of his listed writings; neither does Amazon list him as an author. It is still possible that he's simply that obscure (rather than that this is a hoax), but that raises the obvious question of why we'd have an article for an author that obscure. -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:52, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

  • You hit the nail on the head, the reason you can't find him on anything is because he is just that bad and obscure. The only reason I was able to find anythign on him was because for some reason my grandfather took a liking to him and collected all his books. I tried to find more on him and nothing was listed on wikipedia, so I made the page from what I knew. I'm going to argue that just because hes obscure the page should be deleted, I still think he's worth entering. There are alot of wikipedia articles with a lot less revelance than this. --Beefybot 12:39, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, unfortunately, that's one of the woes of Wikipedia; everyone has their favorite obscure authors/poets/musicians they'd love to write articles about, but if the subject really is that obscure then it doesn't meet Wikipedia criteria. This is why I have not created articles for Blue Vinyl Lounge, Daikaiju (band), Kim Justice, Joy Machine... Is the music awesome? Damn straight. Is that enough to make it appropriate for Wikipedia? Sadly, no. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:13, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Unless they're a different band than the one I'm thinking of, I'm pretty sure Joy Machine means WP:MUSIC. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:24, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
        • Really? The last time I checked, they had had no releases on major labels or significant indie labels before they lost a member and became "Brand New Idol". Is this the same band? -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
          • Now I'm confused. I thought you may have been referring to Joy Division (who, coincidentially, also lost a band member before becoming New Order.) -- Taiichi «talk» 07:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm pretty new to wikipedia, so if you could I'd like to see the actual policy information pertaining to this subject for this example and my own future use. The only thing I can find on this in what wikipedia is not, is that wikipedia is not a memorial and that people must have some claim to fame outside family and friends. I know, as the article specifically states, that he acheived little to no fame, but, he did write a fair amount of books which I think should warrant the article to stay. Now, I have nothing against you, but it would be nice to get a second opinion on this matter, preferably one neither of us is connected to. --Beefybot 15:49, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Sure thing. No offense taken; I think it's smart and good of you to want to go to the policies themselves and see what they say. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:35, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:54, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Beefybot, the relevant criteria in this case is WP:BIO. The three most important policies are Verifiability, Neutral Point of View and No original research. Capitalistroadster 16:49, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverifiable. No entries at British Library or Library Of Congress. No hits on Google or Incywincy. No returns from Abebooks. Eddie.willers 17:02, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. Durova 18:06, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I understand the unverifiable and the original research part, because I did have to go the books themselves and what little my grandfather had written about the dude to get my stuff and theres no online articles on this dude, although I don't know why there not in the libraries. Thanks for pointing out the policies. --Beefybot 20:12, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Helpful Suggestion. If you have copies of the books then can you not, at least, quote the publisher and/or the ISBN? This would verify, wrt wiki standards, that these works exist - despite what the Library Of Congress says! Alternatively, how about scanning the front covers or the whole work? It's now more than 50 years since his death so the books should be in the public domain. Eddie.willers 21:32, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I won't be able to get the ISBN because if I remember correctly that wasn't really adopted until 1970, quite a while after the books were published. I don't have the books with me at the moment (My Grandfather has them) but as soon as I get at them I'll get a publisher and a scan or two if I can. --Beefybot 22:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Simply having written a number of books doesn't make one notable. It is the impact that those books have that makes them notable (or at the very least their sales). I would prefer to see evidence, not of these books, but of Edward Killingstone's notability. DeathThoreau 02:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment I couldn't find this author in WorldCat either (a catalog of library catalogs). Perhaps if you could include a bit more about the publishers of these books? Actually, if they are in the public domain now you might find it worthwhile to add them to Project Gutenburg. Crypticfirefly 05:53, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Antaeus Feldspar. Stifle 23:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment If this page is deleted because Killingstone is NN or unverifiable, what should be done with the articles Wander The Earth and 10,000 Days of Misery? Both are works written by him. -- Taiichi «talk» 07:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - I have a soft spot for authors and I really don't think it's appopriate to delete someone almost from existence because they're not already on the internet. --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 16:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
    • This isn't someone who's just under-represented on the Internet, though. This is someone who's so obscure that not a single page indexed by Google mentions him. Not to mention the Library of Congress, either. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:47, 13 December 2005 (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.