Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Ulrich

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. - Mailer Diablo 17:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Paul Ulrich

Paul Ulrich (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Saudi Match Point (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Unsourced autobiographical VSCA. Notability is questionable, see the conflict of interest noticeboard for more discussion. MER-C 05:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

• Falling over laughing vanispamcruftisement. *laughs hysterically*. Anyway, Nuke it per above. --Whsitchy 06:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, notability possibility (as a debut novelist) marginal at best and there are no sources. WP:COI nips any charitable impulse in the bud. --Dhartung | Talk 06:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - I would have also included Blacksmith Books (the Hong Kong based publisher) in this nomination as well ... it has an identical WP:COI problem because it was created by the same author around the same time (each one attempting to add verisimilitude to the others), while totally lacking any WP:A to satisfy WP:CORP. —68.239.79.82 12:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Neither subject has sufficient notability to warrant inclusion at this time. Doc Tropics 19:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete both - the only thing that shows up on a google search for the book is a lot of spamself-promotion. If this book was in the slightest notable, I'm sure some honest reviews would show up, but I didn't even see any blog reviews of this one. Searching for books even by not-particularly-well-known midlist writers normally show up more than a few of these. The book is the only thing described in the author's article that would make him notable. JulesH 20:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete both risible vanity. Eusebeus 13:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I understand that Nury Vittachi is a notable Hong Kong writer, but using something on his blog as a source isn't really reliable. Either way, it fails WP:N for lack of other coverage.--Kylohk 17:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete both No credible sources. 'Nuff said.--JayJasper 18:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete bio He seems like a non-entity. There are plenty of Ivy-educated, well traveled, minor-league inventors, with a first novel published. His biography could be of interest only to those who like his book. As for the novel, it might warrant consideration. I added a citation a few days ago that 86.... deleted. Last time I checked, however, verifiable sources need not be online: printed books qualify. I don't have the reference work handy but recall something to the effect of what the Saudi Match Point entry says in its first line. Suppose you'd have to prove by a counter-factual, though - ie of identifying another novel with the same characterisic.--Breezer84 03:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment You make it sound like I did a Bad Thing ... I deleted what I believe most editors will agree is a spam link to a PDF order form for a book titled Beyond the Dunes, with the edit summary,

    replaced <ref> with {{cn}} -- a link to the order form for a book is not a WP:RS citation for a claim of "only novel ..."

    If it had been under External links, then I might have left it alone, but it was being used as a citation/reference for the very first sentence of the article:

    Saudi Match Point is the only novel originally written in English and set entirely in modern-day Saudi Arabia or its immediate neighbors on the Arabian peninsula.^[1]

    A claim that grandiose requires a WP:RS, and the order form for a 552 page book that allegedly contains WP:Verification of that claim just isn't a WP:RS, IMHO, although a proper {{cite book}} with a page number is ... after I confirmed ISBN 1850439729 on Amazon.com, I noticed that Amazon said that Beyond the Dunes was published "July 27, 2006", but the article says that Saudi Match Point was publish "April 2007" ... so instead of replacing the EL with a {{cite book}} (I still might have done it if Breezer84 had just provided a specific page number to cite), I chose to replace it with a ^{[citation needed]} tag ... anybody else have a problem with that? —68.239.79.82 12:10, 30 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.