Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Richards (author)

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.

Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:23, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Stephen Richards (author)

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

Delete. Completely unreferenced

talk) 14:10, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article has been completely rewritten so all of the original author's text has gone. This person is well known and notable, because he has written a lot of books (some as sole author and some as co-author). A web search returns a huge number of webpages about him or his books. Snowman (talk) 19:10, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Then by all means add some reliable sources so we don't have a completely unreferenced BLP, which in itself is grounds for deletion.
  talk) 23:23, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have found him mentioned on several more Wiki articles, so the "what links here" now numbers seven articles (excluding lists and dabs). A web-search leaves no doubt that he has written a lot of books, and I have referenced some of his books with isbns. It seems inappropriate to delete a page with seven "what links here" linked articles. Snowman (talk) 15:10, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- None of this addresses the fact that none of the biographical information is supported by sources. People who self-publish can be prolific, it doesn't make their books or themselves notable. See
  talk) 16:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
- I see that you created those links by adding the subject's self-published books as references in multiple articles. However, self-published books may not be used as references. Books where the author also is the publisher means there is no external editorial control, which means that we cannot consider the books reliable. This is addressed in our
  talk) 16:44, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  I rest my case to keep this article: I have significantly enhanced some of the sourcing details with in-line refs. Some of his books are published by
  John Blake Publishing, so these are not self-published books and can be used as references. The Guardian on-line says; "He is the author of several successful true crime books ..." Snowman (talk) 20:38, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 09:58, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Soundsboy (talk) 20:01, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

... but The Guardian says that he has written a number of successful true-crime books. It seems to me that the nominator has over-egged the pudding as can be seen from the evidence that this person is notable. Snowman (talk) 10:31, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Snowman (talk) 10:42, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I would expect that WP Article Rescue Squadron will need some time to respond, and more time may be needed for comments and article improvements. Snowman (talk) 10:46, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A newspaper talks to the man about his books and his plans to make a film. [1] A different newspaper has an interesting biography about him. [2]. Seems notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia. Searching Google news archive for such a common name gives thousands of results to sort through. If you add in the word "author" you still get a lot of results because some newspapers list "author" before the name of the person writing the article. Dream Focus 03:46, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: little evidence of depth of coverage or especial notability, with most of what little coverage that there being apparently the result of the topic's promotional efforts. A brief web-only blurb (not an actual article) about him as a crime-write on the website of one newspaper (but does not bother to review any of the books), mention of the messy failure of a book project on the BBC website (whose main topic was the book's topic, not Richards) and discussion of a proposed film (which presumably came to nothing) in a local newspaper. Stephen Richards: he wrote some books that nobody wrote about, didn't in the end publish a book about somebody infamous, and didn't write a movie about some other infamous people. Doesn't really do it for me, I'm afraid. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:36, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of substantial coverage in reliable sources. The Guardian page contains only a PR blurb reproduced elsewhere on the Web, and the Northern Echo story is mainly about the movie, not the writer. Sandstein 06:23, 28 August 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.