Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cleo Coyle

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 no consensus. COI is not a reason for deletion and that aside, there are equally strong artguments on both sides. I don't think relisting again will come to any consensus either. TravellingCari 18:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cleo Coyle

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Non-notable author. Article has serious conflict of interest issues as well, as the main contributor is the subject of the article. CyberGhostface (talk) 01:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Stifle (talk) 11:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not being notable with few relevant Google News results. On Google, the best I could find was this, all others were plot summary/eBay/Amazopn-like hits. Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 14:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Google News of Canada is not a fair search! A straight Google search (click the number) [1]in the USA yields plenty of third-party links, references, reader discussions, and reviews of this author's mystery novels. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.43.57 (talk) 16:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Can you show us some?--CyberGhostface (talk) 17:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Glad to! Here's one (more to come if you need...) Click the link provided to the Independent Mystery Bookseller's Association bestseller list. Scroll down to April 2008. You will see that Cleo Coyle's "French Pressed" was the #1 bestselling paperback for month. Every one of Coyle's books have hit the IMBA list. In other words, the core mystery reading and bookselling community find Coyle quite notable! Here is the link to click: [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.43.57 (talk) 17:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment In USA - Washington, D.C. area - my Google search of "Cleo Coyle" yielded me over 30,000 hits Google Search USA "Cleo Coyle I then narrowed the Google search to "Cleo Coyle" and "Coffeehouse Mystery" and still received over 6,500 hits. Google search of "Cleo Coyle" and "Coffeehouse Mystery"Yes, lots of bookseller sites featuring Cleo Coyle's books, but also MANY hits for independent reviews of the Coffeehouse Mystery novels, reader discussions and comments, third-party blogs, etc. This is a popular author! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.217.224.3 (talk) 01:21, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A STARRED review from Library Journal is indeed notable for any author. US librarians put great stock in Library Journal. Coyle just received a STARRED REVIEW for her debut hardcover, Espresso Shot. Click the link and scroll down the page to the "Coyle, Cleo" review - note the reviewer affirms Cleo Coyle is writing a "popular" series of mysteries. Again, Library Journal is an important journal for all US librarians. Click here to see the Starred Review for Cleo Coyle's Espresso Shot from Library Journal - Mystery Reviews - 9/1/2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.217.224.3 (talk) 01:06, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it: Is there a conflict of interest with the author of this entry? If there is, I do not see how it makes any difference. Nothing like that is evident in the text. Every statement looks to come from verifiable sources listed and linked to. Cleo Coyle seems to be a notable author in the mystery field. The author is recognized as a bestseller by the Independent Mystery Booksellers Association and confirmed as a mystery author of note by the Library Journal. Leave the entry up by all means!— ZhaVam (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Is there a conflict of interest? Considering the main contributor is User:Cleo Coyle, I would bet that there is.--CyberGhostface (talk) 15:08, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If Cleo Coyle is notable, can someone please explain why A.) The article was speedily deleted for not being notable enough in the past and B.) Cleo herself had to start her own article? I mean, if she was notable enough, wouldn't someone else have done it?--CyberGhostface (talk) 15:13, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Reply: Regarding the conflict of interest: Arguing "I would BET that there is..." does not provide proof that there is. This article appears to have been edited with care to conform to Wiki's NPOV standards. Also, putting up your own article to avoid misinformation and inaccurate representations of your biography and publishing history does not suddenly make you non-notable. Putting up an entry is a starting point for others familiar with the subject to contribute - another argument for keeping, by all means.

Then, by all means. Explain to me how writing an article about yourself does not constitute as a conflict of interest. If you are writing an article about yourself or someone or something that you yourself are affiliated with, then that counts as being a conflict of interest. Writing an autobiography on Wikipedia is extremely discouraged here. I also have to ask how neutral you in all this, when all two of your edits have been on this deletion discussion alone.--CyberGhostface (talk) 18:27, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Reply: If there was an earlier Cleo Coyle entry, that answers your own questions. Sounds like someone other than Coyle did try to put up a page, but it was marked for "speedy deletion" because (in answer to your question A) the writer of the Wiki article on Coyle did not know how to properly provide verifiable evidence of Coyle's biography, publishing history, and notability to those Wiki users unfamiliar with her work in the mystery field. Can you provide any proof that Coyle herself tried to put up the earlier entry? If she did, then why didn't she provide the evidence that she does now? Seems more likely that someone other than Coyle did indeed try to write an earlier entry on her, which would be the answer to your question (B). —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZhaVam (talk • contribs) 18:03, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll ask the deleting admin who started the original article. More often than not with these autobiographies (and there have been numerous cases) the original author doesn't know how to take a hint and restarts an article that was just deleted.--CyberGhostface (talk) 18:27, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - wasn't initially going to put in an argument on this one, but the sheer volume of sockpuppetry that has cropped up on it changed my mind. This is pure spam, and Wikipedia is not for spamming your product. An article like this cannot satisfy Wikipedia's neutral point of view guideline, which is a fundamental policy for all articles. If an author is notable, someone else out there will eventually write about her. Until then, let's get rid of this advertising. - IceCreamAntisocial (talk) 19:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CommentCleo Coyle (talk) 22:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC): This has been an enlightening process. I agree it should be deleted given your strong objection to autobiography.[reply]
Delete per nominator. SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 00:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination and all arguments put forward since:notability, WP:NOT, WP:COI. I also don't like the "has made few or no other edits outside this topic" votes. Bsimmons666 (talk) 01:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Best sellers on major lists are notable. Books with major reviews are notable. In this case, 7 weeks on the 2001 New York Times hardcover fiction best sellers list. is sufficient for notability by any standard. So is an LJ starred review. Major established publisher for the subject. Translations exist into Japanese and Korean and Thai. [3] The various misbehavior above is totally irrelevant. We're judging the subject, not the editors. P DGG (talk) 01:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per nom and all other arguments. Overall, huge COI issue and issues regarding the notability of the articles. Undead Warrior (talk) 03:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per DGG. "Hidden Passions" was indeed on the NYT Best-Sellers list [4] and was written by Alfonsi/Coyle, though not under either name. Stubify it if you have to, but there's no need to delete it. As an aside, Alfonsi and Cerasini also contributed to the Official Godzilla Compendium, which is awesome. Zagalejo^^^ 06:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per DGG, Zagalejo. Bestselling authors are notable.John Z (talk) 08:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A very clear keep. Author is clearly notable and COI is irrelevant to deletion. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 09:03, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Usually COI doesn't bother me as long as the article is NPOV and notable, but I can't find anything establishing notability. --Banime (talk) 09:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.