Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Blake Whitehill

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 Closed as Speedy Delete both under criterion G11 Both are clearly promotional. The author has only self-published books to his credit, which doesn't even give an indication of significance, and therefore could have been deleted as A7 also. The book is in only 33 libraries, and has no possible chance of notability . The author' has only 2 othe books in worldcat, with holding of 6 and 2 respectively. DGG ( talk ) 16:34, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Blake Whitehill[edit]

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

I came across this via his book Deadrise, which was recently created and which I'm also going to include in this AfD.

I searched for coverage, but ultimately I can't find anything to show that Whitehill would pass notability guidelines for authors, actors, or GNG in general. The only coverage I've found are two articles that read suspiciously like they were based on press releases (or are just reprints of press releases). There is also a Kirkus Review, but it was reviewed via Kirkus Indie, its pay review outlet, so it can't be seen as a RS in any form. Ultimately I don't see where Whitehill passes notability guidelines. I also don't see where his work in other avenues (screenwriting) has received any coverage to where they'd be seen as notable. A prior version of the article claims that he's won awards, but I don't see where these awards are major since they don't really come up in a search.

Of note is that I did remove two sources, a blog post and an Amazon link, neither of which would be seen as RS in any form or fashion. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:48, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:27, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:27, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:27, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:43, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:35, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why? I came to this article because I was looking for information on a book series, and I found the information I was looking for. Clearly this article has been useful to someone. What's the point of deleting it, other than to satisfy some deletionist philosophy? I say keep the article. SimpsonDG (talk) 02:45, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notability must be established. You can't argue for inclusion by saying WP:ITSUSEFUL. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:47, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a deletionist thing and if you can provide sources that show he's gained enough coverage to show that he's passed WP:NAUTHOR then I'm willing to withdraw. However saying that you and others may have found this useful isn't an argument for inclusion. To be fair, I'm going to ping DGG. If anyone can help find coverage or justify inclusion, he can. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:49, 26 June 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.