Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kenneth Che-Tew Eng

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. Enochlau 08:52, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kenneth Che-Tew Eng

Ironically, this page might just survive AFD, though it's almost certainly vanity of the most pernicious water... This guy has been a royal pain in the neck on science fiction-related bulletin boards across the web. He has one published novel, which keeps on receiving identically (or virtually identically) worded fulsome praise on bulletin boards, and there is understandably considerable speculation as to who this anonymous is (the name Eng springs to mind). What's more, if other authors criticise the book, dozens reviews of their works suddenly appear on bulletin boards - all identical, all slating the criticiser's work. His frequently-repeated claim to be the youngest-published sf novelist in America is very questionable, and the anonymous reviews now speak of "one of the youngest...". Grutness...wha? 00:43, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• I get no Google News hits for Kenneth Eng see [1] 456 Google news hits doesn't give much evidence of notability and not much in reliable sources see [2]. Delete. Capitalistroadster 01:13, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Take a look at his book for sale on Amazon.com. I think that's notable enough.--Aleron235 01:21, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Also, I've just cleaned up the page, after noticing that many were commenting that they would vote Keep once the article was revised.--Aleron235 02:01, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • When it comes to the mix of dragons and technology it's listed as below Sarah Albee in sales.[3]. If her name came out blue I might have voted keep, but as it comes out red I go with delete.--T. Anthony 08:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Looking her up though maybe her name should come out blue, Sarah Albee gets a fair amount of hits.[4]. That's taking out Wikipedia, Amazon, Barnes, Hastings, and her publisher.--T. Anthony 07:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep No reason to delete, it is factual. And he is the youngest science-fiction author. JedOs 01:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  • He is not the youngest science-fiction author. I would be surprised if he is even the youngest published science fiction novelist in America; has anyone really checked the entire body of SF?--Prosfilaes 04:40, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
    • In history Samuel R. Delany and Robert Silverberg both had their first novel published at age 20, both are still living. I believe I read a review at SFSite of a science fiction book by a sixteen year old.--T. Anthony 07:28, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Amazon sales rank 441305 and no indication that his book ever made any impact. Pilatus 02:44, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for non-notable and most likely vanity page. There are no links to the article, and the book's Amazon rank is 441,305. Recreate the page when he writes something popular and/or well received by real critics. Bmdavll ^talk 02:45, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Weak delete and will alter vote if someone can make it an actual encyclopedic article. Right now it's lousy.--MONGO 03:36, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Weak delete; I would perhaps change for a real article, but this is pretty lousy for a barely notable arguable.--Prosfilaes 04:40, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - article non-encyclopedic and inaccurate (he is not the youngest published science fiction author in America as a teenagers have science fiction published with some regularity). Possible POV problems; no documentation/references. If he is notable, the article should be rewritten from scratch to overcome serious flaws. B.Wind 07:10, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, just selling on Amazon isn't enough. I could get my book in there too (if I finish writing it) It's just that the sales rank doesn't indicate any serious sales. Also depending on how you define SF writer, I think I know a few of them under the age of 20, so even if Anthony is wrong, this guy still isn't the youngest. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:32, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete For all the above reasons, viz: general insignificance, anaemic publishing presence, infactual article. Eusebeus 10:40, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for reasons given above. dr.alf 12:16, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for reasons given above. Sliggy 13:11, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for reasons given above. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:27, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, only one claim of any notability ("youngest"), and that appears to be unverifiable and, in all probability, simply untrue. — Haeleth Talk 15:08, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Was tending towards a weak one, but a pattern of Internet vain behaviour and the reasons given above re the Amazon sales rank dispel my reservations. (Although I would never dream of doing anything as unprofessional as voting to delete just because they write about "cyborg dragons fighting in the Middle Ages". Honestly guv.) --Last Malthusian 15:27, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Supposing he were the youngest, that would be one for the record books, but not one for the encyclopedia. So, let's examine him as we would any author. As an author (and we can totally discount any Usenet/BBS/forum activity), he fails the book guidelines. Honestly, that's about all that we need to consider. His personality and other behavior is sort of irrelevant. Geogre 16:58, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Deletion is not a judgement of good or bad behaviour. If he has a book published, he is notable enough.Hektor 17:58, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Even if it's a vanity press (er, "subsidy publisher")? Having a book publsihed is as easy as paying for one to be published. rodii 03:35, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete nn author. There's a difference between Stephen King and a random guy writing and publishing a book. -^demon 18:05, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn author. Blackcap (talk) 19:32, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, but only if more content is not added and it is not revised. — The Hooded Man 21:52, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep, being a published author who's causing ruckus isn't really a difficult stunt to achieve, but borderlinely notable. And keep the article on the condition that someone please cleans up the article, darn it, it's awful. (I also hate it when people immediately {{afd}} what should obviously go to {{cleanup}} for a while.) I'm not annoyed if the article is deleted now, but I'll welcome it back if the person becomes definitely notable (ie, "how to become a famous author? write more." --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 01:43, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Looks much better after cleanup, thanks. Keep now (though admins should read that as "between weak keep and keep", for the exact reasons stated above). --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 03:29, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
    • It does look better. Still there are so many authors listed on Amazon that I'm just not sure he stands above the pack. So I'm not convinced yet and my vote stands as it was.--T. Anthony 04:08, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• delete not notable. his one 'claim to fame' is wrong. dont think an amazon rank like that would give him the 5000 sales needed to meet WP:BIO. BL kiss the lizard 06:05, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, yes it's a cleanup, no it doesn't meet WP:BIO. Stifle 23:58, 8 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.