Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Owen Egerton

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Owen Egerton[edit]

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

Self-promotional article, WP:AUTO, by non-notable local writer from Austin, Texas, who first created it on his user space. Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:BK. He paid for publication of his first book through notorious vanity press iUniverse, and his other two books are non-notables from an Austin micro-press. His movie script is unproduced, thus WP:CRYSTAL applies. This vanity WP:SPAM is related to the self-promotional articles How Best to Avoid Dying and The Sinus Show, which I am also listing for deletion. WP:COI and WP:SPA also apply here. Literary notability is not achieved by somebody opening a checkbook, paying for publication, and then coming here to spam the project with self-promotional articles.Qworty (talk) 19:15, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, very weak claims of importance, and winning a couple of local "readers' choice" polls doesn't convey encyclopedic notability. Insufficient non-trivial coverage in multiple WP:RS to meet WP:GNG. Nominator's assertion that this is walled garden spam is reasonable. --Kinu ^t/_c 08:45, 29 January 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:27, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 10:24, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reader's polls etc. don't cut it. EEng (talk) 13:53, 2 February 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.