Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keith Shepherd

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 speedy delete as copyright violation of [1] W.marsh 21:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Shepherd[edit]

Also nominating Harvest Fields. Probable WP:COI here, creator removed CSD A7 tag. east.718 22:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: I'm begining to think that there is an unhealthy bias to the articles I posted since they were some how nom. for del. even before I finished submitting them. Rhabdo Sidera 23:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your articles are the only thing with an unhealthy bias, what with phrases like "On the best of days, one could find the this enigmatic wayfarer prayerfully charting the little known courses of the biblical languages, or ardently perusing the country lanes of Jutland". Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 23:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Rhabdo, every article should include references to show notability. If you can produce same over the next few days, good. If you can't, then I suggest you do give more thought to the topics you write about. Thanks. --Dhartung | Talk 23:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: Rubbish!!! I just queried Dan Brown and there is a rather huge bigraphy on him. Rhabdo Sidera 23:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(No !voting twice) Is this author as successful or well-known as Dan Brown? — Scientizzle 23:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no claims to notability. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 23:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until I see any evidence of reliably sourced notability to meet WP:BIO. — Scientizzle 23:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per major failure of ~~WP:BK~~ WP:BIO. The On Your Mark book is self-published (see here, from which page this article is a straight copy-and-paste). The other two apparently exist only as e-books. No evidence of significant third-party coverage. Deor 23:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence of notability shown by attribution to reliable and independent sources. --Dhartung | Talk 23:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as copyvio per Deor. --Charlene 01:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
no proven notability, article way, way substandard. delete Kripto 01:09, 30 June 2007 (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.