Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/T. William Phillips

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 Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

T. William Phillips[edit]

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

Reasons for deletion include: promotion of a self-published book, article apparently written by the author (who denies it on edit summaries and on his talk page), and the references cited are merely book reviews from companies that sell reviews, as pointed out by User:Slowart on the article's talk page. Aside from these references, article lacks actual secondary source references discussing the person and the article is written with an extremely intimate knowledge of the person's history, lacking objectivity. Article may be considered self-promotional and promotional in nature (the contributor had earlier added his name to a list of notable people on Cherry Creek High School), and a Google search brings up only the biographical subject's own website and paid-for book reviews. This article fails biographical notability on every level. Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 16:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. T-Billiam (talk) 17:34, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Circle gets the square. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 17:36, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

T-Billiam, you need to be a little more persuasive with your argument than merely disagreeing. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 19:04, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Slowart (talk) 18:08, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I like to think I have a soft spot for first-time novelists, but this is blantant promotion of an obscure, self-published author. The book should probably be AfD'd too, if someone is so inspired VASterling (talk) 18:34, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, just delete it already. This is just absurd and a complete waste of time. No further discussion necessary. Article should be deleted. Thanks for your unwarranted concern and interest. T-Billiam (talk) 19:06, 20 September 2010 (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.