Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jess C Scott (2nd nomination)

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. postdlf (talk) 01:49, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jess C Scott

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

No reliable sources, almost nothing in worldCat, promotional wording throughout. The article was previously deleted on the grounds of unreliable sourcing. DGG ( talk ) 05:06, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Please advise on tone of article, when articles such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elonka_Dunin are not flagged as "blatant advertising" and/or being written in a "promotional tone." One can presume it is (at least partly) due to the fact that Ms. Dunin is a Wiki admin, and one of the top 350 of active Wikipedians.

Which are the exact sources in this article that are "unreliable"?

The author has received coverage in third-party, independent publications such as Singapore Writers Festival, Word Riot, Provisions Library, The Straits Times, and The Register (UK). These are additional sources that were not there when the article was previously deleted. If these are not reliable sources, may someone explain what a reliable source would be?

To my knowledge, the article on Ms. Jess C Scott satisfies the criteria for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources.

Please advise. Elfpunk (talk) 16:17, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which are unreliable? Jessink, amazon, goodreads, nightowl, to start with; Dunkin's article doesn't have a section listing who hass written on her blog, nor did it have a section on "quotes". DGG ( talk ) 17:15, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The section refers to "blog interviews with a few notable guests." The section does not merely refer to "who has written on her blog." jessINK was listed as a reference while keeping in mind the guidelines at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Self-published_and_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves. The Amazon, Goodreads and Night Owl Reviews references have been removed as per this discussion's recommendations. That being said, those sources do not negate the reliable sources. If there is an issue with some of the sources, the article should be edited, not deleted because of "no reliable sources." Also, please explain why Dunin's page is allowed to list her website (autobiography) as a reference three times, if self-published material/websites are not supposed to be reliable sources, according to Wiki's guidelines. Elfpunk (talk) 15:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:22, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:24, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 19:29, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is nothing in the article that show that the subject meets WP:GNG in any way. The supposed "third-party coverage" is all either mere mentions of the subject, simple quotes by the subject, or dead links. Oddly, I don't find a single review of her works published in a reliable source. I also don't find where any of her works have been listed on any sales charts, of have even been published by a regular publishing house. As a whole, the article appears to be more promotional than encyclopedic. Regarding the thinly-veiled accusations of some sort of conspiracy, I suggest that editor to visit Other Stuff Exists. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 21:41, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment OK, thanks. I would have appreciated receiving that WP:GNG notification when the page was first created with the additional references. If the page did not satisfy WP:GNG, that should have been obvious to admins when the page was first created. I thought the research assistant post on a book published by a regular publishing house, along with the other 3rd-party independent media mentions were sufficient for WP:GNG. And I quote from Other Stuff Exists: "The invalid comparisons are generally so painfully invalid that there has been a backlash against the "other stuff exists" type of rationales."

For your reading pleasure:

The Closed, Unfriendly World of Wikipedia, Danny Sullivan (technologist)

Wikipedia as a Force for Evil, Piero Scaruffi

The Cult of Wikipedia, The Register

Revenge, ego and the corruption of Wikipedia, Salon (website)

Wikipedia’s Sexism Toward Female Novelists, New York Times | Elfpunk (talk) 23:25, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Tough case, right on the line. Fundamentally I believe the author is probably notable due to the number of works published and number of readers, as seen here at LibraryThing. However meeting the technical hurdle of WP:GNG is a challenge that Wikipedia sets for inclusion. It's arbitrary, but so is the height limit to get on the roller-coaster. So keeping GNG in mind, looking through the refs I see one that counts for a reliable source that discusses the subject in-depth, and that is the Word Riot interview. The rest are articles by Jess Scott (not about Jess Scott), which can't be used for GNG purposes. Or they are just brief mentions, a single sentence quote, or notice of appearance somewhere, which are not considered for GNG purposes. Typically what is needed for authors to meet GNG are two types of sources: interviews that talk about the author, and book reviews (in reliable sources). Are there any book reviews in Publishers Weekly? -- Green Cardamom (talk) 02:08, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:34, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't pass GNG. Only articles I can find are primarily written by the subject. The only real thing subject has going for it, is the fact subject has published multiple books. However that by itself isn't enough. Caffeyw (talk) 21:46, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't pass WP:AUTHOR, appears to be promotional. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:11, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - plenty of stuff by her, not a lot about her. The "Wikipedians are evil" conspiracy refrain does nothing to suggest to others that you are assuming good faith. There are plenty of "getting started" guides that would have pointed you to WP:GNG and all other relevant policies had you looked before creating your article. Stalwart111 00:56, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too soon. I would love to recommend keeping an article about a Singapore born young writer of erotica who has relocated to Maine and is struggling with acne, and whose ebook was banned by Amazon. What a life story! Unfortunately, I have been unable to find significant coverage in reliable, independent sources needed to demonstrate notability. As such coverage could be published tomorrow, my recommendation to delete will be withdrawn immediately if such sources are produced, and I wish the young writer every success in the future. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:57, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Improved POV as per this page's suggestions--added references/interview/review from Worldcat, SexIs (magazine), and Straits Times Online Mobile Print. Please advise if these are not credible sources, tks. Elfpunk (talk) 22:00, 21 August 2013 (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.