Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darren Phillips

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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Darren Phillips

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability and sourcing issues. The web site included doesn't appear notable. Haven't been able to find a source that backs the claim that he's reported for BBC World Service. I have been able to verify the books listed exist, but they are (so far as I've seen) self-published (e.g., Empire Publications through a cooperative http://www.wunderland.com/LooneyLabs/History/EmpirePublications.html ), and themselves lacking (so far as I've been able to find) no secondary coverage. Unsourced for about three years. A challenging article to source b/c of the commonality of the names, it's certainly possible I've missed important coverage, but otherwise I recommend deletion. j⚛e decker ^talk 16:19, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly difficult given the commonality of the name, but I find no results on gnews for his name plus "Shankly", which seems to be the main point of asserted notability. Delete due to failing to meet WP:V. --Joshua Scott (formerly LiberalFascist) 05:56, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: not necessarily saying he's notable, but would this be considered reliable? Because it verifies much (although not all) of the information in the article. Alzarian16 (talk) 14:04, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say it's reliable, but not necessarily to establish notability, since they are selling one of his books. --Joshua Scott (formerly LiberalFascist) 01:09, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it appears looking at the About page there that the site is part of a group that's essentially a multi-publisher marketing cooperative including the publishers of those books. So I'd certainly say it's reliable and credible for questions of who wrote what book, but as Joshua says, it doesn't establish notability (it's not really secondary) and as a non-secondary source it requires a certain amount of special handling, I'd take a biography of the author on that site with the same grain of salt I'd use for an author auto-bio blurb. --j⚛e decker ^talk 02:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: something must be screwy about this AfD for it still to be open!--Milowent (talk) 05:58, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You're absolutely right, there is something messed up. While listed on AfD's by biography, it appears that the edit into the June 30th page was immediately eaten by the next AfD placement on the June 30 page (which I also am responsible for) that day. I could guess how that happened, but I suppose the more immediate question is "what now?"--get it properly relisted on a new day so that other edtiors get a chance at it? --j⚛e decker ^talk 07:00, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted on 13 July due to user error described above. --j⚛e decker ^talk 07:13, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Due to notability and even verifiability problems.--Milowent (talk) 16:58, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, just not notable. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only source I and apparently anyone else could find turned out to be non-independent of the topic, leaving the guy with no chance of passing WP:BIO or any other guideline. Alzarian16 (talk) 18:25, 20 July 2010 (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.