Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laurie Young

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 based on consensus that article subject does not yet meet the General Notability Guideline. — Satori Son 18:00, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Laurie Young[edit]

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

Previously prodded and removed by article creator, then re-prodded, so I'm moving the re-prod rational here: Doesn't seem to meet notability guidelines. Possible COI, given that the author appears to know the subject (having uploaded the "own work" image). The-Pope (talk) 23:47, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above rationale - I'm the person who added the re-prod rationale (got mixed up between WP:PROD and WP:AFD. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 23:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure that as a published author with 8 books in print Laurie Young does meet your criteria and the issue is my lack of knowledge of how to format the information to show verifiable citations. Is there a simple,user freindly explanation please? I have included links to books newspaper articles and the web and am not sure what more could be shown. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AUKmarketeer (talk • contribs) 06:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC) — AUKmarketeer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Help on citations is available at WP:REFBEGIN. The notability guidelines for people are available at WP:BIO, specifically, in this case, WP:AUTHOR. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 07:59, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The general notability guideline is useful reading for what we are looking for - significant coverage (ie not trivial, mere mentions or presence in a list) in independent (ie not publisher/employer/self-published) reliable sources (fact checked, not self-published, neutral, not promotional). It can be very difficult for marketing/business writers to meet this, as almost everything related to them is promotional, but book reviews in reliable sources (not "anyone can submit" websites) help, or profiles of the PERSON, not just his work or being quoted for his opinion, in reliable sources help immensely. To make it clear, I nominated the article as a procedural matter, as you can't be PRODDED twice, and do not have an opinion either way. But the bottom line is this is an encyclopedia that should be used to record the notable events and people, not just as a promotional website for someone trying to sell books. The-Pope (talk) 08:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find evidence of notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:48, 23 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. The accomplishments listed in the article would not be enough for WP:PROF, so I think we have to go with WP:GNG instead. But I can't find the independent reliably-published nontrivial sources about him that would be needed for that, either. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:42, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I will add a citation from the Daily Telegraph newspaper http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_Telegraph I assume that counts as a nontrivial source? Will also check re book reviews. Publisher is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Wiley_%26_Sons . Several books used as course books on professional exams - where I first came across him. Books are not self-published promotional material. will try to add further detail — Preceding unsigned comment added by AUKmarketeer (talk • contribs) 12:58, 27 July 2011 (UTC) — AUKmarketeer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete Thanks for trying, but the Daily Telegraph item is a just passing mention of Laurie Young in an article about someone else. In order to certify Young's notability we need SIGNIFICANT coverage in multiple independent Reliable Sources. It's possible this man has gotten such coverage - as the author of several books from a major publisher - but I'm not finding it. Merely being a published author is not enough. --MelanieN (talk) 00:24, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:RESUME, WP:SOAP, andWP:SECONDARY. Aside from being a prolific writer, subject does not garner independent coverage in any reliable sources to meet Wikipedia notability standards. Yoninah (talk) 12:46, 28 July 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.