Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K. G. Childs

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

K. G. Childs[edit]

non notable, vanity, bio Leppy 02:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Leppy 02:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, published author, see WP:BIO Delete per Badgerpatrol --TBC??? ??? ??? 02:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • reluctant Keep relieved Delete per Badgerpatrol, below. The subject of this article clearly wrote both this article, and the one on his book. In addition, the reviews on his book on amazon.com all (in my opinion) look suspiciously enthusiastic. However, it seems that any published author is notable. Article should be cleaned up, though. --Xyzzyplugh 02:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Not a published author in any objective sense- his book appears to have been (self-) published by a vanity publisher ([1]). Asphyxiating prose. Look out for the amusing spelling mistakes on his website also. I also wonder how he managed to join the army aged 15, although I concede rules may have been different then. A vanity page and nonsense in a whole number of ways- delete.Badgerpatrol 02:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Constitutes a cautionary example that appearing on Amazon does not in itself mean that a subject is notable. Unfortunate and misleading that this sort of vanity material makes it on there. Badgerpatrol 02:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, "vanity published" does not mean published. --Deville (Talk) 03:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per bio, not an advertisor, nn. TKE 03:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment assuming this is deleted, The_Fortress_City should go as well. --Xyzzyplugh 03:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - that picture hurts my eyes. --Khoikhoi 05:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Royboycrashfan 06:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Badgerpatrol. Bucketsofg 06:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since AuthorHouse UK is a self-described self-publishing house. I also nominated The Fortress City. Creator has no edit history outside of this author and his book. Just zis Guy you know? 11:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, vanity. --Terence Ong 14:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Vanity press books require very clear evidence of significance, and "a copy for a relative" motive only sharpens that need.
    --Jerzy•t 16:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above --Ugur Basak 21:40, 28 March 2006 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/K._G._Childs&oldid=1137962601"