Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phillip W. Simpson

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. Lourdes 03:30, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Phillip W. Simpson[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

WP:BLP of a writer, not reliably sourced as passing WP:AUTHOR. Of the 22 footnotes here, 21 of them are literally his own books metaverifying their own existence on Google Books or the self-published websites of their own publishers, and the other one is still the self-published website of the book's publisher, just to its front splash page instead of to a page actually promoting the book per se. As always, you do not make a writer notable enough for a Wikipedia article by metareferencing his work to itself to prove that it exists: you make a writer notable enough for a Wikipedia article by reliably sourcing his work to media coverage about him and his work, such as critical reviews and real arts journalism. Bearcat (talk) 02:52, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. feminist (talk) 04:01, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. feminist (talk) 04:01, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional. There is clearly a COI and I suspect this is in fact self-promotional. Created by an SPA and with biographical information not contained in any citation. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 05:25, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]Whiskey71 (talk) 22:06, 4 May 2019 (UTC) (edited to make it visible by User:Dushan Jugum).[reply]

Directory entries, "participating writer" profiles on the self-published websites of literary festivals, press releases from your own publishers and employers, blogs and YouTube clips of you speaking about yourself are not notability-supporting sources. A couple of these sources are okay, but most of them are not valid support for notability at all — somebody else (not you) is going to have to review whether the sources that are okay are enough or not, because even with a couple of better sources the notability test for a writer still requires more than just that your name has appeared in newspapers once or twice. Bearcat (talk) 14:51, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional. "The person has created a significant or well-known work" WP:AUTHOR is the best hope here and he falls short. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 02:38, 5 May 2019 (UTC)).[reply]

~~'Keep~~' Of the Sources brought above, by Whisky71, School Library Journal, [10], Kirkus, [11], Western Leader [12], I'm not sure about Teenreads [13], and this one, [14] from the university where he teaches a writing course, can be used to source bio. Meets WP:AUTHOR. All sources now on page need to be removed, because they are all PRIMARY links to publisher's pages.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:45, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

E.M.Gregory, which one of his works is "significant or well-known" and why? Is a few reviews in, a very local free paper and Teens Reads etc enough? We are not trying to verify his work, but decide if he is Wikipedia Notable. (School Library Journal, [15]|Dushan Jugum]] (talk) 10:56, 10 May 2019 (UTC)).[reply]

His page at the New Zealand Book Council [16] is an indication that sources can be found. As is the fact that he has publishes with major presses, and at least one of his books has been picked up by a mainstream press in the U.S. I think we should look a little harder. Removing the links to publishers now.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:50, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:TOOSOON for this AUTHOR. Taking a closer look, the best source is Kirkus [17], although it is not the bluechip source it used to be. I am not confident that the review in School Library Journal, [18] isn real, i.e., it may be a post by a post-at-will, and is certainly extremely brief. And I take User:Dushan Jugum's point about the Western Leader.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:42, 10 May 2019 (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.