Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank Duff (writer)

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. Consensus is that the subject is not notable; consensus also holds that the book's article, Lysergically Yours, should also be deleted. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Duff (writer)[edit]

An article that provides no evidence of notability. The author of a book, Lysergically Yours that has not been reviewed by a single mainstream outlet, is not recognized by the country's two largest booksellers (Chapters and Amazon.ca) and, according to Worldcat is held only by Library and Archives Canada (as required by all Canadian titles awarded ISBNs) and the University of Toronto Thomas Fisher Rare Book Room. A clear failure of WP:BIO Victoriagirl (talk) 00:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page for reasons already presented - fails WP:BK:

Oppose. The author's book Lysergically Yours was reviewed on the front page of Slashdot and seems to have entered the word "Lysergically" into the lexicon (as evidenced by the song "Lysergically Yours, My Psychedelic Bride" by An Albatross as well as having been an early pioneer of declaring commercial works Creative Commons concurrent with a print release. Furthermore, his article "A Coder in Courierland" was an internet sensation and was reprinted in Wired Magazine. Figarofigaro (talk) 02:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC) — Figarofigaro (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment: While I can't agree that the word "lysergically" has entered into the lexicon, I note that usage pre-dates Frank Duff's book. If "A Coder in Courierland" was indeed "an internet sensation" there would have been a great deal of coverage of the work and its author - yet a google news search for "A Coder in Courierland" brings not a single hit. Victoriagirl (talk) 11:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. Unnotable author and extremely unnotable book. Fails WP:BIO/WP:CREATIVE and WP:BK, respectively. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. A google search turns up no evidence for the notability of either author or novel. While "A Coder in Courierland" does appear to have gained some degree of popularity, I don't see any discussion of it in reliable sources. I can also find no evidence that it was published in Wired; every reference I see to it in an appropriate google search links to the kuro5hin.org original, and none mention it having been reprinted in Wired. A search for it on Wired's web site (which apparently carries all of their stories since 1993) turns up nothing. Yes, the novel was reviewed on slashdot, but as most of slashdot's articles are user submitted they cannot be considered a reliable source. Apart from anything else, there's no way of knowing whether or not the review in question was simply the result of some sly self-promotion. I've also tagged the publisher, No Media Kings for notability and prodded it. JulesH (talk) 12:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - current sources do not support WP:N, happy to reconsider given new sources. Artw (talk) 18:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is the wrong way round—the way it works is, first the book becomes significant or important in some way, then it gets a wikipedia article. You don't get to put the article up in the hope that the book then goes on to achieve great things. We have to have that rule to keep Wikipedia from drowning in promotional material.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet WP:Creative. A google search was unable to locate any independent sources to support notability. Untick (talk) 15:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. I originally PRODed both of these articles back in February. As I wrote then, Duff fails the notability criteria for both WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. All his work is self-published on the internet. The few reviews, such as [1], [2], are self-submitted blogs. No significant coverage or reliable sourcing has been found. I'm not certain why these articles were never deleted after their PRODs expired, but there has been no improvement since. This Afd is nomination is correct — CactusWriter | ^needles 15:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is just to clarify my initial confusion about why these articles weren't deleted previously. In fact, they were. I have now determined that these articles had been deleted after the PRODing in early February. However, they were restored a few days ago when an IP user complained about those deletions. So... let the Afd proceed. — CactusWriter | ^needles 16:10, 23 March 2009 (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.