Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RJ Tolson (2nd nomination)

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. Mackensen (talk) 12:23, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RJ Tolson

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected

csp

|username}}.

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

RJ Tolson is not notable according to WP:AUTHOR. Additionally, most of the content on the page was added by either KickStartWrit or MetaphysicsSoul. These users have both claimed to own the pictures they posted of the article's subject. That suggests that they are either are RJ Tolson himself, his friends, or his publicist. Flow 234 (Nina) talk 11:41, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 17:21, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep Literally just discussed this a few days ago. I agree about the two users, but I don't think that takes away from the display of notability with multiple independent reliable sources -
WP:SNOW Simplespeed4ce (talk) 19:48, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

— Simplespeed4ce (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Remove Completely non notable guy that started this article about himself.
talk) 02:56, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep I started this with the fact it covered
WP:BASIC as it's notable. Won't speak for anyone else, but I saw him speak at an intern entrepreneur speakers conference, and doing some review it currently covers that even more so than before, as it should. KickStartWrit (talk) 19:49, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:57, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:22, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Note: This debate has been included in the~~ WP:DELSORT/COMICS instead) Opencooper (talk) 23:03, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:22, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:23, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WREG and WTNH sources are all press releases so they are primaries not independent of the subject. He is also outside the scope of
WP:ANIME as his manga is OEL. It is not listed in ANN or MADB. The book awards are not notable. Neither is his discography. Author's works do not show up in Kirkus, Publishers Weekly, or School Library Journal. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 13:06, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete I can find no coverage of him in
notability guideline for people either. The current sources used do not comprise significant coverage and the awards are not significant. Opencooper (talk) 22:56, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Opencooper (talk) 23:00, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Author has clearly been the subject of multiple independent reliable sources as well as ones directly affiliated with sources mentioned in
WP:BASIC. RightWing4 (talk
) 4:39, 17 July2016 (UTC)

— RightWing4 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

keep I think RJ Tolson is a public figure, many people search him, the information provided in the article is well arranged and factual and have all good references attached. If people search RJ Tolson then Our Wikipedia should be the first to show the details. So, I strongly believes that this article is good enough to stay on Wikipedia. Awais Azad (talk) 19:50, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please clarify if you have been paid to put a vote here as well? A disclosure is required per our terms of use. You seem to have not replied to multiple queries at COIN. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:35, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hmm I just did a source check, looks like they needed to be updated. I found quite a bit, including reliable sources, press releases, and coverage, including from the Pasadena Star. Some of the content was deleted from the sights I assume, but I would say he's notable and meets the recs.
WP:SNOW . Dakotatwin (talk
) 1:03, 20 July2016 (UTC)

— Dakotatwin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment It seems we have a bunch of
how to contribute
to a deletion discussion, and to try to differentiate themselves from each other; a deletion vote is supposed to be an editor's own argument after looking at evidence, not piggybacking off of another user's rationale without actually understanding it.

WP:SNOW is a user essay is meant to be called upon when circumstances or previous discussion already show that a procedure isn't likely to go through. It is not a substitute for making actual arguments, especially when two editors have already voted delete, and the previous discussion did not have overwhelming consensus and was closed without prejudice to reopening due to concerns raised in a comment, that we are now addressing. (It's also curious that the previous discussion also had
an account that was created that just jumped into voting in several AfDs and lay dormant after)

notability with evidence instead. Everyone saying there are multiple reliable sources needs to actually show us them; having hits in a web search is not enough and each source need to be assessed individually for its independence, reliability, and coverage. Opencooper (talk) 14:55, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note I suspect there is some paid voting going on, possibly on an offline site. I have never found a bunch of new faces trying to defend an AfD. This article btw is being used purely for promotion. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:39, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Enlighten me, as I'm new, how do "we" know that this article is being used for purely promotion? In comparison to the other author pages I see being deleted right now this has more credibility, I'm not saying it fits perfectly, just in comparison. Opencooper I'd be happy to try and back up what I said even more specifically, thanks for the notice.--Dakotatwin (talk) 01:42, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the books appear to be self-published. The web site of the publishing house Universal Kingdom Print says: "Universal Kingdom Print, Division of RJTIO, LLC.", and RJ Tolson's own web page says "(c) 2015 R.J. Tolson and RJTIO". The books are not carried in libraries (one book is in 2 libraries in WorldCat), and I will accept the earlier respondents' findings regarding lack of reviews in the usual places. LaMona (talk) 15:24, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - obscure self-published writer; tails
WP:AUTHOR and other tests of notability. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:53, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete and salt - In addition to the arguments already stated, even the editor who started the article has all of 21 edits in three years, most having to do with this subject. I don't why people think that
coatracking will work other than to satisfy the editors who only superficially review material. I have seen no solid reason to keep this, and I see every reason to salt the page so this situation doesn't recur. MSJapan (talk) 01:43, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete and salt - The article subject is an author who is barely notable even locally. The first AfD survived because no one even looked at the sources and it never got attention. Not one good reliable source contains significant coverage about the subject. The swarms of SPA makes me doubt the notability as well. This is also a delete per
WP:NOTPROMO. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:32, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment You want to "salt" the article because he is "barely notable even locally"? I didn't even know
coatracking was a thing, I just thought this met the notability guidelines so i create the article to contribute to wikipedia. The whole point of this is either to see if there are sources enough to provide even more notability, because as established there is some, and when I checked there was more each time I contributed (which is why I did to help the article I created be better), and if not, then to delete the page. How does salting the article benefit to this situation? "I see every reason to salt the page so this situation doesn't recur." Please explain the reasons as you see every reason to delete the page filled with sources more reliable than not, so that it makes sense for anyone in the future that has sources that meet the notability guidelines better (as we seem to think they don't currently) they can contribute. KickStartWrit (talk) 09:51, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Comprehensively fails
WP:AUTHOR. All works are self-published. Note that his press releases and the WP article state that he was "signed" to Universal Kingdom Print, when in fact he owns the company, to the extent one can consider this a "company". There are virtually no library holdings, zero independent reviews in either the mainstream press or the specialist publishing press such as Kirkus Reviews. The "awards" are utterly non-notable. This leaves us to seeing whether he passes the General Notability Guideline. What we have are a series of appearances on local TV stations, where he promotes his book with the background parroting his press releases, i.e. minor local news stories, ditto the article in the Pasadena Star-News. Comprehensive libraries of these press release are available here, here, etc.. It thus fails the GNG as well. Voceditenore (talk) 07:16, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Additional comment The "Forever Trust Charity" which he allegedly founded, appears to be completely bogus. Despite the claims on its website, it is not registered as a
charitywatch.org and despite claiming the AARP as one of their "partners", it is listed nowhere on the AARP website [1]. I am removing both the claim and the reference from the WP article. Voceditenore (talk) 07:52, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Additional Comment I couldn't find anything about Universal Kingdom Print to refute what you were saying, in relation to the author, though from looking up two of the authors they have I found a lot. If I'm not mistaken, it says Forever Trust is "a division" of the company which is not for profit on the website, not a separate entity, so it's not a 501(c) organization. KickStartWrit (talk) 01:48, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean you "found a lot" that refutes the fact that he is the founder and CEO of the company that publishes his books? It's blindingly obvious he is. As to your second point, he can describe the so-called "Forever Trust Charity" anyway he wants to on his website. That utterly misleading description as a "charity", with zero independent sourcing and zero notice taken of it beyond his own press releases, does not belong on Wikipedia. Voceditenore (talk) 10:17, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails
WP:TOOSOON.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:04, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: The two 'awards' he cites, the Beverly Hills Book Award and the Indie Excellence Book Award are both run by the same organization, and you have to pay them to be nominated. So flagrantly bogus, I deleted the mention in the article.
talk) 03:48, 25 July 2016 (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.

~~Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/RJ_Tolson_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1088096064"~~