Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Green (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. — Cirt (talk) 01:29, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Green (writer)

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

BLP with no evidence of independent coverage. Deprodded without comment. No significant coverage found. Michig (talk) 20:30, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete independent sources are not optional. Detail of life while lacking independent sources suggest COI to me. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:09, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cerejota (talk) 07:05, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak deleteHe is author of a number of commercially released books, some in well known franchises. His "The Horror of Howling Hill," a novel in the Dr. Who series, is held in 99 libraries, per Worldcat. His "Unnatural History" is held by 64 libraries. His "Human Nature" is held by 46 libraries, and another book by over 50. He has written so many that it is a chore to search for the name of each in turn to see if there are published reviews. Does the site "Graeme's Fantasy Book Review" constitute a reliable source? It has a review of "Unnatural history." and a review of "Anno Frankenstein." Is Gamezebo a reliable source? It has a signed article about Green joining Gamebook Adventures. The article, which is diminished in its effectiveness supporting of notability by sounding like it started as a press release, says he is a popular author. Looking at a sample of reviews online, mostly I just found anonymous reader reviews at Amazon or fansites for the fantasy/scifi genre. So he seems to be a successful working author. The problem is, his name is a common one, even for authors, and there are many hits at Google News archive for other "Jonathan Green's". We need multiple reliable and independent sources with significant coverage, or other indices at WP:AUTHOR, which I just do not see as satisfied. I'm prepared to shift to keep if someone turns up evidence of notability. He is not just some guy with some self-published works. If he is interested in self promotion, he should have hired a PR agent to nudge journalists and gotten a few bio articles and reviews published in newspapers and magazines. Edison (talk) 20:09, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I'd really rather you didn't delete this page, seeing as it's about me. I didn't create it and the comments, both good and bad, are the work of others. I know various links have been provided. Why are these not considered good enough references for the page to stay? Yours Jonathan Green (Monday 15 August 22:10 BST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.148.222.184 (talk) 21:10, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In answer to the above editor self-identifying as the subject, this procedure will be discussing whether or not to delete, keep, or take other action to the pagespace. Wikipedians tend to appreciate boldness and truthfulness, so I for one appreciate your interest in the subject matter. It's clear the subject exists and is well-published. I'm going to provide some shortcuts to relevant guidelines and policy as I write so you can follow the discussion better. Several issues arise immediately: self-identifying as the page subject (a claim we will be in no position to verify), your opinions would be subject to scrutiny through the prism of WP:COI. I appreciate that you state you haven't been involved with the article, and that's generally a good practice. The issues which confront us in this discussion relate to WP:VERIFIABILITY and WP:NOTABILITY. The specific secondary notability criteria WP:AUTHOR applies to creative professionals. Lots of amazing and impressive individuals do not meet the criteria for inclusion in an encyclopedia. What is under discussion is whether there are sources meeting the WP:RELIABLE criteria to verify page assertions and to assert notability sufficient for retention. Search engine results are tricky in this case because the name combination is so common. While your direct participation on the page or in this discussion may not be appropriate as the page subject, if you'd like to add some really good sources in a section of the talk page, this may help us discuss the key issues. Please read the link to reliable above to help you see what we'd be looking for. BusterD (talk) 18:40, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 18:40, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment Inadequate discussion yet to plot consensus, IMHO; my relisting is coincidental but not related to comment I posted above. BusterD (talk) 18:46, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:BLP with large amounts of text unsourced. No indication he passes WP:AUTHOR either. FuFoFuEd (talk) 22:52, 20 August 2011 (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.