Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicholas Waters

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: Deleted - no evidence of notability, creator's request. - Mike Rosoft 20:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nicholas Waters

Nicholas Waters (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Sources are missing, and I am doubting the notability of this author. The publisher of his book Eats, Roots & Leaves, a company whose name strikingly resembles that of the author, seems to have published exactly two books. And I haven't been able to find any reviews of the "world premiere" or mentions of the lectures for which he is supposed to be "known by teachers" online. I am also nominating the following related page because (see above):

Eats, Roots & Leaves (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

High on a tree 00:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

This is high-brow nonsense. Surely a publisher has to start somewhere? So what if they have only published 2 books so far? As for notability. How do new authors get noticed by anyone? As for the world premiére try this: http://www.eveningnews24.co.uk/content/News/story.aspx?brand=ENOnline&category=News&tBrand=enonline&tCategory=news&itemid=NOED16%20Nov%202006%2008%3A51%3A54%3A233

KEEP As far as I know, Nicholas Waters doesn't advertise online. There is life outside the internet and he has always contacted teachers directly by direct mail. However, being one of very many (there were 117 of us in Gothenburg, Sweden on the 16th April who paid around $150 to attend a brilliant day's lecture) teachers who have enjoyed this guy's work since 1987, I can certainly vouch for him. I have been to all the lectures listed! Sorry If I don't know all the conventions of replying to mails. Handy Andy 33 Småland, Sweden PS. He was on swedish radio again last week!Handyandy33 01:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC).

"high-brow nonsense": You seem to have misunderstood something. You are right, new authors have to start somewhere. However, the way to "get noticed" is definitely not via Wikipedia, because Wikipedia only describes facts, things and people who already "got noticed" outside Wikipedia - that is the essence of Wikipedia:Notability (which I had linked above for your convenience). There is nothing wrong with starting a new publishing company or self-publishing books. However, if you want to argue that such a book is notable enough to merit its own Wikipedia article, you need evidence like reviews in respected newspapers, literary awards, sales figure... see Wikipedia:Notability_(books)#Self-publication. The deletion of the Wikipedia article about this book does not amount to a quality judgement about the book, only to a judgement if it has satisfied Wikipedia's internal notability guidelines.
Personal accounts like your statements above can unfortunately not be used as sources for Wikipedia articles (see WP:RS and also WP:NPOV). But thanks for the link. If you could cite more media reports, and not just in local media, the articles would be closer to satisfying Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability.
Regards, High on a tree 04:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

KEEP Goodness knows what a Ghit is? Is it something American? Eats, Roots and Leaves was conceived 2 years before Lynne Trusses dreary coffee table book. We were told about it in 2001 at the different Englishes lecture. This book is in every way vastly superior and quite different. Handy Andy 33, Småland, Sweden Just for the record, I wrote both articles and got permission to put the picture of the book up. Handyandy33 01:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


And another thing. If you look at the user page of this objector, TenPoundHammar, you will see that he is obviously doing this out of a grudge against anyone who disagrees with his prescriptivist grammar line. He writes: "This user considers singular they substandard English usage." Handy Andy 33, Småland, Sweden Handyandy33 01:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Where the hell did you get that concept from? I'm not "doing this out of a grudge against anyone who disagrees with my prescriptivist grammar line" -- whatever that freaking means. I simply stated an opinion on the page -- and I'm not the only person on Wikipedia who considers singular "they" substandard English. You'd better hold your tongue and avoid the personal attacks, and I mean now. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 02:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Hold my tongue? That's exactly what you want isn't it? Censorship! At least be honest. So welcoming to a first time user.Handyandy33 03:02, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Quit putting words in my mouth. I never said a word about censorship. Wikipedia is not censored, and I have no reason to believe that it should be. And I'm sorry if you're offended, but your behavior right now isn't exactly making me want to greet you with open arms... Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 03:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
      • What other interpretation can there be for "You'd better hold your tongue...and I mean now? You wrote it! And as for "I'm sorry if you're offended, but" Doesn't 'but' mean disregard everything in the sentence before but? Handy Andy Handyandy33 03:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
        • I'm just trying to steer you from the possibility of getting banned from Wikipedia. When I said "and I mean now", my implication was that if you don't stop attacking me this way, then it's rather likely that you could get blocked. I'm going to stop exchanging words on this discussion for now and give you a cooling-off period; if you still think you've got something bad to say about me, then I'll try to resolve the dispute -- and if that fails, then we'll see what happens next. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 04:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Individual does not pass WP:BIO. What is relevant is whether a subject is notable, whether the information in the article can be attributed to multiple independent, non-trivial third party references unrelated to the article subject, and whether the article conforms with Wikipedia policies concerning the biographies of living persons, conflict of interest, copyright matters, and the like. This article does not make the subject appear notable enough for Wikipedia, and searching on Google (what "Ghit" means) does not reveal sufficient non-trivial independent third-party references to this. Hard-copy references from non-trivial sources (from books other than his works, for instance, or magazines) talking directly about this individual would also make acceptable references, but I don't see any of that in this article. Dreariness or the lack thereof does not matter with respect to Wikipedia policies, nor do personal opinions about things. Anti-American sentiment and sarcasm will not bolster your argument, even to fellow non-Americans such as myself. And yes, the article is not written in an encyclopedic matter - it looks as if it had been written for a promotion. Wikipedia is not for getting attention for non-notable subjects. The subject has to already be notable. (Edited.) --Charlene 01:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

KEEP Asking if something is American is hardly "anti-American". I like America, I have been there 3 times and boosted the US balance of trade in doing so. However, please do consider that native English speakers are only 4% of the world's population that use English. I wouldn't know how to write an encyclopaedic entry. Would you like to help me draft a better article? Handyandy33 01:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

  • deleteas nn per WP: BIO. —Gaff ταλκ 02:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete due to lack of evidence of notability. HandyAndy, you don't get to "vote" (they are not really votes) more than once, so I have struck through your later comments to forestall any confusion. --Dhartung | Talk 04:03, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess that you are one of the mods that Ten Pound Hammar threatened me with. I had no idea that the keeps and deletes were votes. Thanks for putting me right. A first and possibly last time user of Wikipedia.Handyandy33 04:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete I was going to examine the article on the book, but instead I found: "Sorry, this page has been removed after just a few hours. Grammar fascists don't want any discussion. So much for the bill of rights. Maybe, one day, you will be allowed to find out about this book on Wikipedia." So much for trying to give the benefit of the doubt. I tagged that one for vandalism instead. No sources per WP:RS or WP:BIO to confirm or deny any claims beyond this one book. The news coverage of that book gives some hint of notability, but I'm afraid that one news piece is not sufficient. DarkAudit 04:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

It is rather obvious that the article would be deleted anyway. Wikipedia seems to be so unfriendly to new posters. So I got rid of it to save anyone the difficulty. What I left could be regarded as my "away message". PS It is so odd that the threat that Ten Pound hammar made keeps disappearing. Is he now ashamed and keeps removing it?

Only thing obvious to me was that you chose vandalism instead of letting the article on the book rise or fall on it's own merits. Rather than try to improve the article by citing more sources, you decided to claim ownership of the article and take any criticism as an attack. I've had articles I'd worked hard on deleted myself. Even after I tried to improve it. Don't take it so personally. DarkAudit 04:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  • No, it's not odd at all. My comments are still on your talk page; they don't need to be here too. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 04:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete nonnotable and poorly sourced. ➪HiDrNick! 04:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, clearly this is a non-notable author. Wikipedia is an encyclopædia, not a promotional vehicle. Lankiveil 05:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC).
  • Delete Author is not notable yet. Maybe later. - Richfife 05:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC).

Delete This is a lost cause. Without getting the author himself to send me all his links and references, I am unable to do much more. Although I could mail several hundred teachers and ask them to sign on to Wikipedia just to say keep to see what kind of democracy is then practised. I too hope that the author does become notable enough for Wikipedia. I shall keep coming back to check to see if anyone else puts up something to him. I have also mailed Nicholas with the full text of this debate in the hope that he can use it in some way.Handyandy33 10:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. The book is not available at Amazon and, according to them, they don't know when it will be. This suggests it to be rather trivial to begin with. Second, there is one newspaper article which is now listed but it stands alone and certainly does not meet the multiple, non-trivial requirement of WP:N. Sorry. I see the book is also up for AfD and it should go too. JodyB talk 12:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Does not meet WP:ATT, or at least I can't find multiple reliable independent sources about the subject. GoodnightmushTalk 13:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete {{db-bio}} for the author and {{db-spam}} for the book - couldn't fail WP:BIO more strongly if they tried. I strongly suspect that my book's 317 sales to date has outsold this self-published effort (10 Ghits, most of which are blank) — iridescenti (talk to me!) 15:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Talking of gits. 317 Pathetic! Handyandy33 16:41, 19 May 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.