Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Zeigdel

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. Overwhelming consensus here that the subject does not meet our notability guidelines. 28bytes (talk) 21:51, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Zeigdel

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

Does not meet criteria of WP:AUTHOR. Google search does not bring up significant coverage in reliable sources, only catalogue entries and booksellers. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 23:34, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE - the entirety of Talk:Tim Zeigdel was copied into this discussion. Referencing the talk page from here is fine, but copying it is pointless and confusing. And also based on the heat level of the talk page discussion, I'd like to remind all participants to remain civil in the discussions. This applies to everybody – new editors and established editors alike. -- Whpq (talk) 13:35, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find no significant coverage about this author to establish that the general inclusion guidelines are met or that the specific guidelines for authors are met. -- Whpq (talk) 13:49, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 16:57, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources WP:RS to establish notability as required by WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Googling suggests they don't exist. Fails to state any reason why the subject is notable. (Simply writing some number of books doesn't do it.) The article appears to be WP:AUTO for WP:PROMOTION. Msnicki (talk) 19:45, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While the author has published works in the cited catalogues, that does not indicate notability. Wikipedia does not exist to echo library catalogues but to provide additional, verifiable info. Searching for additional information on this author turns up nothing of substance and I cannot help noticing that the page creator Rotewriter is also the name of the publishing house for this author (Rote Writer Publishing House), thereby violating WP:PROMOTION and/or WP:COI RandomAct^{(talk to me)} 20:22, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I did an exhaustive search on this author and read many articles, columns and excerpts. I learned he writes commentary and has a column linked to these websites www.rotewriter.com and timzeigdel.com. He seems to have had a politcial past. He's worked in television and cinema with work on a six part mini-series called 'Northern Town' and the movie 'Whisper'. What makes me think he is notable is aside from his written work which would wow the likes of Aleister Crowley, is why he writes. He experienced, endured ECT, Electroconvulsive Therapy or Shock Treatment some twenty, maybe twenty-five years ago. It's why he writes... to remember. It's as important to him and necessary as insulin is to a diabetic or a wheelchair to a paraplegic. After watching the video on this website ect-canada.ca and reading his written work--I believe with certainty he is notable.

P.S. I've seen what Wikipedia has passed as notable among many musicians and artists; be it writer, rapper or actor. Many are not even fit to be known let alone be considered notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abrahadabra (talk • contribs) 01:29, 2 September 2011 (UTC) — Abrahadabra (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete - Lacks reliable independent secondary sources as required by WP:GNG and WP:BIO. — Kudu ^~I/O~ 15:19, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely delete Non-notable author, self-published; Tim Zeigdel uses the pen name Rote Writer® which is also the name of his publishing house [1]. RoteWriter is also the name of the author of this article, so evident WP:Conflict of interest. The level of invective from an IP on the talk page is appalling and could almost serve as another reason to delete the article. --MelanieN (talk) 21:29, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; falls far short of our notability guidelines. bobrayner (talk) 21:37, 6 September 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.