Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Sharp

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 of the debate was speedy delete at request of sole editor, User:Ginar, may his tribes increase. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 22:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Sharp

Non-notable author. Article created by same author as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Book of Light

Delete as per my nom. Dlyons493 Talk 02:38, 15 January 2006 (UTC)}}[reply]

oh come on. Is there a law against doing that? Author is notable judging by booksale ranking on amazon.com. It took me only a few minutes browing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_books_by_title:_A to find books that don't sell as well.

author writes for several internet and print based magazines and is a regular media personality. Not famous like Oprah for sure but I see other author pages here with authors even less notable than this one. Certainly this author meets notability guideslines as defined under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_%28people%29

Delete author of four books by a very minor publisher, with no indication of their criteria for seleciton (other than that submitted works conform to editorial POV, aka "the truth"), only one of which is even in the Library of Congress catalog, all of which are available free to download (which is vanishingly rare for any mainstream author). Zero evidence of an audience > 5000 per WP:BIO and much of what is written is unverifiable from neutral sources. So unless someone can cite me a profile from the New York Times literary section I say this is not so much an author as an evangelist who writes books. On the plus side, according to the author the books are "clear, concise, well written, and precise." It would be too tragic if he thought they were crap... - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 14:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is established precedent for ignoring self-published or vanity press publishers. There is also established precedent that verifiability requires discussion by neutral third parties. Information from a subject's own site can be used, but WP:NPOV requires that other reliable sources are available. Hence my request for one. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C]

AfD? 23:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

got ya, doh! although I don't agree with much of what you said up there (i.e., there is evidence of notability), the issue of reliable and neutral sources is an important one. I think I agree with the consensus here. Its too early for this entry to appear in the encyclopedia. oh well, live and learn

Delete per WP:RS Ginar
- I think this can probably be closed as Ginar is the sole editor of the article? --kingboyk 14:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. See also: image:Bol cover large.jpg, an image of a Michael Sharp book uploaded by Ginar, where he says: This file is released into the Public Domain by the Author and the Publisher whom I represent; and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jesus in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints where Ginar shows no qualms about deletion! --kingboyk 22:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'comment source of article irrelevant as is behaviour on other delete votes. Ginar

Speedy delete as nn-bio. Stifle 00:02, 17 January 2006 (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.