Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nick Wolven

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 consensus is that there are not enough reliable, secondary sources to merit inclusion. NW (Talk) 20:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Wolven[edit]

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

Insufficiently notable author who also happens to play in a non notable band. The reactions described on the page to the author's stories do not constitute significant coverage; as such this fails WP:AUTHOR. None of the references really constitute reliable sources. A search for actual significant coverage turns up empty. Triplestop x3 22:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non notable. I've dated people who've been published in Asimov and attended Clarion; they weren't notable (for Wikipedia purposes) either. There are a lot of signs here that Mr Wolven may become notable in the near to medium future, and at that point the article creator is welcome to re-create the article, but as of now a single published short story doesn't meet WP:N. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - has received much acclaim. Positive reviews for 3 stories, and I believe he has published more. We need sources. Luminifer (talk) 04:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Luminifer
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Luminifer
As with Pain Hertz, the article seems to be referenced to self published sources, and non-reliable sources. One of the few which could be a reliable source giving notability merely mentions 'Others (such as Merrie Haskell and Nick Wolven, whose stories are appearing in our next issue) will be authors whose work is completely unknown to me.', hardly a independent review. I would suggest delete. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I first went though all of the references included with the article. None were reliable-sources and all were trivial coverage (one short paragraph or less) of his stories. There was zero coverage of the subject (Nick Wolven). I then checked Cengage, Google Scholar, Books, and News and came up with zero hits across the board. He does not pass anything in either WP:N or WP:PEOPLE and I don't see a case for WP:IGNORE. One good feature is that it's a nicely done article in terms of references. --Marc Kupper|talk 06:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - it's well-researched articles getting deleted that discourages newcomers (or anyone) from creating articles at all. this is (was, as i'm now retiring because of privacy invasion) why i created so many new articles (over 100) - and almost all of them so far have stayed, and it's a great joy when someone who _actually_ knows about the subject comes along and adds something. Luminifer (talk) 04:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--non-notable musician/author. Having published one story is not enough. Drmies (talk) 04:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why is everyone saying that? He's published four that are listed - 3 have some references to (minor) reviews. He's possibly published more. Luminifer (talk) 04:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, he's published 3. It's not December yet. And I counted "one" because of the one in Asimov. The Magazine of Historical and Speculative Fiction, I wouldn't count that as a very legitimate publication. What was the other one--Lady Churchill's Rosebud Wristlet? Looks nice--but also looks very, very minor. No, a writer has to do a bit more than publish one, or two, or three stories to gain notability. "He's possibly published more"--yes, and it's also possible he won a Nobel Prize for Literature, but until I see some proof of notability (hint: look in print, not just on the internet) I don't accept it on good faith. Drmies (talk) 04:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - If you'd been this verbose in your original comment, such as "only published one story in a major outlet", then we'd have saved this exchange... Luminifer (talk) 14:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I didn't realize you were into verbal economy; I apologize. Drmies (talk) 15:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Luminifer, Wikipedia notability is not about what someone does but rather is based on detailed coverage by reliable second parties that are independent of the subject. You can have 50 books published by major houses and still not be notable. Or you can have one book and nail notability because magazines such as Playboy ran large articles about you. The WP system seems strange at first but makes sense as the articles are supposed to be based on reliable second party coverage. If there is no, or very little, coverage then the subject is deemed "not notable" because we don't have a foundation of source material to use for the article. --Marc Kupper|talk 07:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely that what you are stating is a valid goal and interpretation of wikipedia policies, but it's not the only interpretation - the polices are not only incredibly vague, but somewhat contradictors ([[WP:MUSIC only requires, for instance, 2 albums released by a semi-important label, and not necessarily much media coverage). Luminifer (talk) 14:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. I see no assertion of notability in this article. Pmlineditor ∞ 12:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Marc Kupper's investigation, I see no evidence of encyclopedic notability, article seems purely promotional in nature. --Stormie (talk) 07:05, 5 October 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.