Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wayne Arthur Harris

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 of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 22:48, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wayne Arthur Harris

I prodded this but the tag has been removed without explanation. It's a vanity page created by someone who writes as a hobby, has few Ghits and apparently no Amazon rank.

  • Doesn't matter. Review the guidelines on notability and biography to see what the Wikipedia consensus is on which topics qualify for inclusion. Thatcher131 21:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete self-published author of two books whose only reviews come from review farms. --djrobgordon 15:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Author is non-notable at this time. Few GHits, no Amazon rank. — TheKMantalk 16:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete NN vanity. Fan1967 16:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete self-published author, autobiography, altogether a bad idea. Just zis Guy you know? 16:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete The author's literature doesn't appear in the British Library bibliographic database. WP:BIO and WP:N violations refer.  (aeropagitica)  16:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity press, no Amazon sales rank. Wikipedia is not free advertising space. -ikkyu2 (talk) 17:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable; vanity. Bucketsofg 20:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Hello! "Rewind To Ancient Times" has sales ranking on Amazon in both the U.S. and the United Kingdom.--65.94.195.206 21:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment "Amazon.co.uk Sales Rank: 1,383,973"; "Amazon.com Sales Rank: #3,943,352"  (aeropagitica)  22:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Arthur Herzog an award winning author publishes with the same company. Are we in the business to attack book publishing companies here? --65.94.195.206 22:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
    • No! Never attack. However, publishing with a reputable publishing house can be a criterion for notability; publishing houses such as Little, Brown; Random House; Penguin Putnam; etc., excercise editorial discretion, which approbation is taken as a surrogate marker of encyclopedic notability. As clearly shewn vis-a-vis their website, publication with iUniverse is a surrogate marker of no more than a pocket ready to part with its heavy ladings of gold. Other evidence of notability, then, must be put forth; the books prima facie are rubbish until reputably sourced otherwise. -ikkyu2 (talk) 23:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
You might want to reconsider the "r" word. Certainly the existence of self-published books are not, by themselves, evidence of encyclopedic notability; nothing further need be said. Thatcher131 01:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
You said what I meant to say in the first place, certainly. -ikkyu2 (talk) 06:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete A search of Global Books in Print and Galnet's Literature Resource centre. Two books on Amazon with sales ratings in the millions and short stories published in local Canadian newspapers. Doesn't meet WP:BIO for mine and lack of verifiability as well. Capitalistroadster 23:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete; nn, vanity. An author isn't automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because they've published books; criteria for distinguishing notable from non-notable authors still apply. Wikipedia is not a PR database. Bearcat 00:05, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
  • And what distinguishes notable from non-notable authors? Sales or content? Just recently there was an article in the Toronto Star about authors that were selling smut out of the trunks of their cars and making hefty dollars. Are they to be noted on this site or denied?--65.94.199.80 03:51, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
    • They would have to be denied if they didn't meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. It's not necessarily "sales vs. content" — there are the far more relevant matters of verifiability, fame, critical evaluation as being an important influence on a particular literary genre or scene, literary awards, etc., to consider. An author selling smut out of the trunk of their car might conceivably manage to sell a not-entirely-unrespectable number of copies of their book, but how could Wikipedia verify their sales or their importance? Again: Wikipedia is not a PR database; it's an encyclopedia. Our purpose is to reflect things and people that are already considered important or noteworthy by objective, verifiable sources; it is not to help promote things and people that want to become acknowledged as important or noteworthy. If you want a free webpage to help you promote and sell your work, go to Myspace — Wikipedia is not the place for it. Bearcat 02:05, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the "Myspace" suggestion. I will check it out.--70.48.46.56 15:33, 12 March 2006 (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.