Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/R. l. royle

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. (And yes, I noticed that The Bully Boy is perma-blocked.) —Wknight94 (talk) 01:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] R. l. royle

R. l. royle (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

NN self-published author, with a short article in the Yorkshire Evening Post is insufficient to satisfy WP:BIO Carlossuarez46 00:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete for now. Her book is on Amazon in the UK, but has a sales rank over 500,000 and few Google hits for a recently-published book ("Lucy's Monster" + Royle = 27 displayed hits). I'd also like to cite Geogre's law... --Idont Havaname (Talk) 01:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
The capitalisation (or lack of) was because I initially searched for her name all in lower case. Unbeknownst to me, when I created the new page it came up that way. I would, of course, change it now if I knew how :P But if you look, there are now further references. Also, the book's stocked in Waterstones and the second is described as a 'breakthrough' book on its page at W H Smith's: http://www.whsmith.co.uk/whs/go.asp?isbn=0955063116&DB=220&Menu=Books. It may only be low on Amazon's ratings, but I believe she does most sales directly through her own website or collectors' shops, due to the high discount she has to give to Amazon. Also, I believe there were only a limited number of copies printed, which would also account for the low rating. Christopherpaul 02:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete Bad article. The Bully Boy 13:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

  • As you can see, there are now multiple sources that back up the content of the article and assert notability. Action TV and Best magazine have also tipped her as 'one to watch', so there is a case for notability. The article may need polishing, but I firmly believe that it should remain. Christopherpaul 14:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Sources are not tangential, as they either refer directly to R. L. Royle or her work. Also, she has a substantial audience and work published in novel and magazine form. 81.102.221.48 01:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, as violating WP:BIO, and rules cited therein. This is a NN author. The sources are tangentially about the writer. Bearian 00:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Sources are not tangential, as they either refer directly to R. L. Royle or her work. Also, she has a substantial audience and work published in novel and magazine form. 81.102.221.48 01:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.102.221.48 (talk)
  • delete this is a nn self-published author whose article was written by somebody who says above: "I believe there were only a limited number of copies printed, which would also account for the low rating" which, if anything simply proves the nn status. B1atv 07:06, 19 September 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.