Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Hayward

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 no consensus--Adam ^(talk) 19:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] James Hayward

Vanity article from User:Jamesnice - some of them published by what seems to be his own company LTM (which he's been link spamming around various articles). Other by little-known publishers and with very low Amazon rankings. But I'd like the community's opinion on this one.

• Delete as per my nom. Dlyons493 Talk 02:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BIO and WP:VANITY --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 02:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Some of his titles may be vanity or POD, but several seem to meet notability standards, most conspicuously "Myths & Legends of the First World War." Note in particular this edition [1]; very few vanity books are reissued in large print editions. The main publisher of the book also looks legit [2]. Monicasdude 02:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Just a hair width shy of vanity per Monicasdude but completely non-notable. Ifnord 03:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Eusebeus 07:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete, not notable enough. Sandstein 17:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. My first two books were self-published, but that is not the same as vanity publishing at all. They have both sold several thousand copies. My later books are for Sutton who are a large UK publisher. Both these books have also appeared in translation abroad, as well as the softback and large print editions. Is the criteria by which a writer or publisher should be judged their 'Amazon ranking'? Surely not. It's pretty naff to have to justify myself in this way, but several of the 'delete' comments are plain wrong. Plenty of other minor writers have written their own Wikipedia entries. It isn't wrong per se. James Hayward. 20:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC) contribs) 19:40, 31 March 2006.
• Keep Notable enough, more notable than some writers with articles. Piccadilly 19:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, worth keeping. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 03:38, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I saw at the time that it was a vanity article but after checking and adding the BBC link I felt it/he was notable enough. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 06:20, 1 April 2006 (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.