Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jesse Haynes

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 article's subject is found to lack notability. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:44, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Haynes

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

This is a non-notable author who got a little bit of local coverage for his self-published novel. This isn't enough to pass WP:CREATIVE. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:31, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 00:11, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 00:11, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is extremely, extremely promotional - so much so that I'd actually endorse a speedy deletion via WP:G11. This is probably because there's a very likely COI here and if this wasn't done by a paid editor, it was likely done by someone who knows the author. It could also very likely pass A7, as the only claims of note are his Amazon sales (which mean nothing on Wikipedia) and a social media following. A look at his YT account shows that he has all of 10 followers, which goes against the claims in the article. The only coverage he's received is from Tulsa World, a local source. If I don't speedy this, I'm very tempted to close this one early after a few people weigh in on this because there's pretty much zero chance of this surviving deletion given the dearth of sourcing that comes up via a search. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:50, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaning towards waiting and letting this get deleted as a snow close, since that would help prevent re-creation before the author gains more coverage to achieve notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:51, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I was a little too generous in avoiding a speedy. Well, my initial prod was reverted by an IP editor from the University of Tulsa, so I think it's possible the article will be recreated if it's speedy deleted. For what it's worth. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:34, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Couldn't find any additional reliable sources either; delete until it fulfils WP:N, let alone WP:CREATIVE. ‑‑Yodin^T 11:31, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Save Page Doesn't seem to be hurting anything. There are definitely worse pages then this on Wikipedia. There are no YT claims as Tokyogirl179 suggests. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.215.197.179 (talk) 02:10, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The claim I'm referring to is the "significant internet following". A significant following would result in thousands upon millions of followers - having 10 followers on YouTube doesn't back up those claims, nor does the small amount of followers on the other social media sites. Although I do need to state that a large amount of followers does not automatically mean that someone is notable per Wikipedia's guidelines - we actually have quite a few people who are extremely well known on various social media, yet fail notability guidelines on Wikipedia. Some of the Lets Players are great examples of this, as we have several LPers that have extremely large followings but fail notability guidelines fairly solidly. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:15, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would read WP:EXISTENCE and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS Joeykai (talk) 04:39, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:54, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BASIC, a search brings up nothing reliable, similarly the book creepers does not meet WP:NBOOK, with again no reliable sources found. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:05, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not yet better for WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 19:20, 7 February 2016 (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.