Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Rehak

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, since there's no apparent coverage in reliable sources to back up the current content. Flowerparty^☀ 01:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David Rehak[edit]

A BLP of a self-published author. Although the article speaks of coverage in 'prominent newspapers', including the Montreal Gazette [sic], no references are presented, nor does Google news provide any evidence of such. The sole media coverage presented is limited to a couple of non-notable review sites. Fails to meet WP:BIO. There may also be a WP:C issue in that much of the text is also found at the Fantastic Fiction website (I cannot determine whether this was lifted from Wikipedia). The product of a WP:SPA. Victoriagirl (talk) 16:17, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Fails WP:AUTHOR. There are no reliable sources claiming notability. Johnuniq (talk) 04:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep author of notable true crime book on Lizzie Borden and debut novel which caused controversy. Media coverage various, from notable to non-notable. The sources are accurate and reliable, although you make a good point not all coverage comes from sources off of the internet like Google. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Verywords51 (talk • contribs) 15:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Neither of the two sources provided - Rambles.net and Curled Up With A Good Book - support the notability of the book on Lizzie Borden, nor does either provide so much as a passing mention of any controversy concerning Rehak's debut novel. Please note that references need not be limited to those found on the internet. That said, I do find it odd that there is not a trace of the 'praise and criticism from prominent newspapers' found on the internet. Equally curious, it seems that the 'heated debate' and banning of the author's novel received no media coverage whatsoever. Victoriagirl (talk) 18:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There are other sources for the book on Lizzie Borden supporting its notability. As for the debut novel, I do recall the media coverage 6, 7 years ago in around 2002. That is how I learn of that book. That was a long time ago. Your assumptions are therefore not surprising. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Verywords51 (talk • contribs) 20:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment If there are 'other sources' that confer notability on Rehak's 2005 Lizzie Borden book may I suggest that they be presented? As for Rehak's 2002 title, A Young Girl's Crimes, surely a title that earned its author the title 'literary prodigy', 'garnered much praise and criticism from prominent newspapers', 'created heated debate' and was 'banned from some school library shelves' would have some presence on the internet. Which edition of The Gazette has the book described as 'The first Christian porn novel'? Whose words were these? How is it that a book that was 'successfully agented and published' was self-published (as were all of his Rehak's other titles)? A final query: I don't see that I've made any assumptions. Perhaps you'd care to clarify. Victoriagirl (talk) 21:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I personally don't have all the sources with me from 2002 etc as print articles and webpages come and go. I hope they can still be retrieved. But the book was not self-published, I see the author's books were largely published by POD and independent publishing houses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Verywords51 (talk • contribs) 01:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment All of Rehak's books were published through Lulu.com and PublishAmerica. Victoriagirl (talk) 12:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Some yes. Not all. Some were also published by Angel Dust Publishing and Just My Best, Inc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Verywords51 (talk • contribs) 13:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment In fact, the Angel Dust and Just My Best books were published through Lulu.com and PublishAmerica as reflected in their ISBNs and on the publishers' websites. That said - and with all due respect - I think we're getting a bit sidetracked here. After all, one can be self-published and notable, just as is is possible to have been published by as prominent a company as Random House and not be notable. The nom is based on the argument that the subject fails to meet WP:BIO. No information has yet been presented to counter this. Frankly, assuming the article's contents are accurate, this information should not be at all difficult to uncover. Victoriagirl (talk) 14:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment First let me thank you for such a lively debate. I haven't been this intellectually challenged and stimulated in awhile. I've checked into it and registration of ISBNs indicates that these are indeed 4 different and separate publishing companies, so they cannot be publishing through each other. And of the 4, only Lulu offers self-publishing, which means that the author can pay for a distribution service. But you're right that there's no need to get caught up on that. In my humble opinion, although I haven't bothered with hunting down the articles and links and citations, based on web searches and offline sources I remember reading, I come to the belief that the information is sourced and it meets WP:BIO. I understand you feel differently, and that's fine, I fully respect and understand, and we can agree to respectfully not agree. On a purely subjective note, I must say I have really enjoyed this author's books and it would be for me a big pity to see this interesting article deleted and removed, as I would be interested in seeing it change and expand as the author's career progresses. With that concern in mind, I of course leave it up to wiki administration to make the final call. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Verywords51 (talk • contribs) 16:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC) — Verywords51 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
        Comment I'm glad we agree that the self-publishing issue is an aside. That said, I think it important that no misconceptions persist. The ISBNs on Rehak's books belong to four companies that serve self-publishers: Lulu.com, PublishAmerica, CreateSpace and Just My Best Publishing (warning: this last publisher's site features malware). On to the issue of notability: As it currently exists, I cannot agree the article meets WP:BIO. Simply put, there is no indication that the subject meets the basic criteria.Victoriagirl (talk) 17:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- and strongly suggest setting precedence for updating WP policy about "self-publishing" as a limiting factor. ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) 05:46, 11 June 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.