Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew Amerling

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 was delete all. Sr13 08:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Matthew Amerling

Matthew Amerling (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Proposed deletion tag removed without comment, so bringing here for discussion. This is an author with one novel, printed through PublishAmerica, which, despite its fervent denials, appears to be a vanity press. He and the novel each have about 190 Google hits; of the ones I looked at, none appeared to be valid reliable sources to help him meet biography guidelines. The page has one link to a local newspaper story. Creator of this page is User:Amerdale, so I suspect a WP:COI is involved as well, and this is probably a promotional attempt - also note that links to this series of articles have been added to a lot of other articles. I'm also bundling in his book and the main character of his book into this discussion. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages, as noted above:

The Midknight (novel) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Jesse Sands (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  • Delete all. Even if one discounts the obvious WP:COI problem, the only third-party source for any of this is a local newspaper that, presumably, will print almost anything with a supposed local interest. It all fails WP:N and WP:V. Deor 05:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete all WP:COI WP:N WP:V (take pick) /Blaxthos 16:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • ROTFLMAO. And PublishAmerica claim to have standards. Delete all before I'm tempted to read more of that synopsis. JulesH 21:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Writer of a non-notable book published on a vanity press; has no other known achievements. For those wondering whether PublishAmerica is really a vanity press, see Atlanta Nights. --Charlene 09:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Do not delete PublishAmerica is not vanity press, but a POD publisher. Also, this is supposed to be a neutral encyclopedia, but it is obvious from contributions made by User:JulesH that this user has major negative opinions about PublishAmerica and therefore, this user's comment should not be taken into consideration. Finally, as for User:Charlene.fic's accusations that PublishAmerica is a vanity publisher because of the Atlanta Nights article, it should be known that this article is outdated as PublishAmerica does now sell to major bookstores and they do carry PublishAmerica books.User:Amerdale 15:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Whether or not PublishAmerica is a vanity press is, of course, a matter of opinion. However, they have been described as a vanity press in a number of reliable sources including the Washington Post. I don't think it is therefore a stretch for the nominator to say it "appears to be a vanity press". Yes, I hold negative opinions of the company. This stems from discussions I have had with ex-employees of the company and with authors who have previously published work with them. They do not have editorial standards, so I see no reason we should consider one of their publications for an article unless it shows it has surpassed (by a wide margin) the average dreck they produce. And if you have a reliable source that shows that major bookstores now stock PublishAmerica books, please add it to the PublishAmerica article. I have seen no such source, so I must conclude that they do not, as was the state the last time this subject was discussed by a reliable source. JulesH 17:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete all Deor summed it up well. To the article's creating editor, a well known bit of advice: "comment on the contribution, not the contributor". Adrian M. H. 16:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete all - self-published book with no indepenndent coverage of teh book or author. -- Whpq 21:18, 6 June 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.