Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/It's-Geek-2-Me

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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:37, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's-Geek-2-Me

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

It's a new page by a semi-new user (been around since 2008 but most of his edits have been to insert himself or his work into Wikipedia), but ultimately this just fails notability guidelines. It's a page for a self-published book/comic that was recently released this year, but there's only two links in the article that ultimately show notability. I've been working on the article to make it less promotional and more encyclopedic, but I have to finally throw in the towel here. The previous edits did have more links, but none of the links are what Wikipedia would consider to be reliable sources. The sources included a link to the book's Amazon entry, a link to the author's webpage, and multiple links to a blog called TechBurger. There were also links to a few stories about Pittsburgh, but they didn't mention the webcomic or its creator. I feel a little like I'm kicking a puppy, but there's just no notability here no matter how long I try to work on this. There is a COI going on here, as the article creator is also the author of the comic book. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:13, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also want to note that there's a redirect for the individual book (it'd been created at the same time as this one, but was a carbon copy of this article) that, if this is deleted, will need to be taken care of. Also, I want to also note that while there are two links to articles on this page, that's pretty much about the extent of coverage in RS for this series. There's no depth of coverage here.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:16, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As creator of the above article, I agree with all the edits Tokyogirl79 has made to ensure that the article is more encyclopedic. Perhaps the following sources will help reinforce its verifiability and notability: [1], [2], [3], [4]. Thanks for listening. Fcleetus 13:32, 8 June 2012 (EST)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:03, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing is, few of these are considered reliable sources that show notability. These links ([5], [6]) are from non-notable blogs/e-zines. Things like this can be used, but only if they're by someone who is considered to be an absolute authority on the subject, the type of person that's routinely quoted in books, scholarly journals, and the like. This link ([7]) is a press release, which is considered to be a primary source, which cannot show notability. Primary sources aren't completely off limits as far as backing up minor claims, but they must be backed up with another non-primary reliable source. What this basically means is that there should already be so many other reliable sources that using primary sources wouldn't be necessary. The Patch article is good, but it really only mentions you. Now this doesn't mean it can't be worked into the article, just that it could be argued that it doesn't show notability for the comic book. It's kind of a tricky thing, to be honest.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:12, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Seems to me to be a violation too of WP:NOTPROMOTION. TuckerResearch (talk) 01:35, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete spam/vanity/self-promotion, and based on the pitiful Amazon sales rank of the book (686,216!) it apparently hasn't helped. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:14, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom - not notable. --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:18, 17 June 2012 (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.