Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Fivelson

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 No consensus. Pascal.Tesson 17:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Fivelson[edit]

~~Does not assess notability well,~~ low content. east.718 04:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete Non-notable, and probably want to add Tuxes as well; future book by vanity press from that author. Coren 05:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the changes now properly assert notability. I'm still worried about the obvioius conflict of interest, but the article itself is now okay. Coren 02:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So added. eaolson 17:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Worse still, both articles were created by one Beachsidepress (talk · contribs), who just happens to be the above vanity press. Obvious vanispamcruftisement. MER-C 06:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Questionable notability, COI, likely spam. eaolson Keep. The author appears to be notable, thought the book is clearly WP:CRYSTAL. eaolson 03:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added: "This article is made by his publisher" I am certainly not a vanity press - Scott has paid me nothing - ever, as my website indicates - I never charge authors for any services. And several external articles have been added that show he has been published by other publishers as well. Also, the book Tuxes is available now for pre-orders on Amazon, and we are taking orders from our website and shipping now, so it is currently available. I did not put a link to Amazon on the article either. I am seriously working to maintain objectivity, and am open to other comments you may have. Respectfully, Ron Beachsidepress 05:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The changes apparently made to assert notability are enough. The author has previous publications, including books, articles in big name magazines, and movies (script). A note could be included in this article about his forthcoming novel. The separate article about the forthcoming novel should, however, be deleted. Felisse 19:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: I have looked up the past articles Scott has written both on Google and in the archives for the Chicago Times, Playboy, ... and have seen for myself that he has been published by these major papers. I suggest we reconsider and vote for a strong keep. Ribike 20:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ribike, could you provide links to those articles so that I and others can reconsider? John Vandenberg 03:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, there are news archive results that may be useful, and the Route 666 (film) is held in a Danish library[1]. John Vandenberg 03:43, 22 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.