Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam Kolczynski


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:10, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Adam Kolczynski

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Author who has just published his first book and appears not to be notable per WP:AUTHOR. CSD declined on grounds that he is "a published author" there is an assertion of notability. Jimmy Pitt  talk  17:18, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: I declined the CSD because there was an assertion of notability, not because he is a "published author", and plainly stated so in the edit summary. There is a difference between the two, clearly spelled out at WP:CSD. Frank  |  talk  17:29, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Apologies: your edit summary read "assertion of notability exists (published author)". My AfD summary is sloppy and I'm amending it. But I do find it amusing that you have now AfD'd the book that is the sole assertion of notability. Jimmy Pitt   talk  17:47, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This is a serious, ongoing project, with policies. An author may or may not be notable even if his works are not individually notable. There's no dichotomy here. And - again - I have not asserted that the subject of this article is notable. I've merely declined to delete the article as a WP:CSD because notability was asserted. The criteria for books are different, and I feel The Oxford Virus is clearly not notable, but that does not qualify an article for WP:CSD either. I don't find these policies amusing; they are the basis for how things work around here. You describe yourself as "amused" that I have "now AfD'd the book", when in fact I did so right after declining this CSD, and 27 minutes before you created this AfD. My nom of the book had nothing to do with you or this AfD...it was based on policy. Frank  |  talk  18:12, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I never suggested you AfD'd the book because of me, nor did I suggest (as you imply) that I found the policies amusing. But I do suggest, in the interests of keeping the AfD on track, that we call a halt to this exchange. Jimmy Pitt   talk  19:34, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete There is no suggestion in the article or in the publisher's information that Kolczynski meets any of the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (people). None of the citations in the article are independent. Having read the stub over thrice, I am not sure what "assertion of notability" Frank  was referring to, unless  Frank  meant Kolczynski's bronze metal in high school at the International Chemistry Olympiad, which I don't think qualifies. --Bejnar (talk) 17:53, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I consider being a published author to be sufficient assertion of notability to disqualify an article from speedy deletion, simply from reading WP:CSD. It seems you disagree, and indeed other admins might also disagree. However, in this case, I was the one who got to it first, and that was my judgment. I don't think any harm has come to the project as a result. I do, however, think that using CSD as a blunt instrument instead of as a scalpel would harm the project, and I decline to use administrator tools in that fashion. Frank  |  talk  18:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Let's move on from the difference of opinion regarding the feasibility of the A7 CSD. We're at the AfD stage now. Notability has not been established according to WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG criteria. References provided are neither significant nor independent of the subject. Recommend deletion. Cindamuse (talk) 16:58, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't delete. Adam Kolczynski is a published author who has been critically and independently reviewed. Stylistically, there is nothing about the article to suggest advertising or gratuitous self-promotion, discrete or blatant. There is more basis for notability than countless other articles accepted to the project. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.170.115 (talk) 22:25, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note. Appearance of Kolczynski on independently-compiled Fantastic Fiction database (cited in references) is sufficient evidence of notability. UK-based author, Veronica Stallwood, has also used Fantastic Fiction as a sole reference. Standards must be consistent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.170.115 (talk • contribs) — 86.163.170.115 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment. Basing an argument on "What about article x" is rarely a good idea. In this particular instance, I was able, in less than five minutes, to find three solid references re Veronica Stallwood, one a biographical profile and two which place her body of work in context, as well as several minor references to her involvement with writers' workshops and a university creative writing course. The difference between Stallwood and Adam Kolczynski is that these sorts of references exist for Stallwood (who has also published something like 15 novels): that's why, in Wikipedia's terms, she is (probably) "notable" and he (IMO) isn't. Jimmy Pitt   talk  12:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:AUTHOR, by a wide margin QU TalkQu 20:48, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note. Kolczynski satisfies the criteria for notability NOT by virtue of being a published author (anyone can self-publish), but by being independently reviewed. In a heavily ring-fenced industry like publishing, 5 independent reviews are not a foregone conclusion. Suggest a 4-week period of grace to see if further citations/references can be found to convince others of sufficient notability. I repeat: appearance of Kolczynski on independently-compiled Fantastic Fiction database (cited in references) is sufficient evidence of notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.154.98.226 (talk) 00:10, 19 October 2010 (UTC) — 109.154.98.226 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment. Actually, notability is established according to policy and guidelines. An independent review does not establish notability. Neither does inclusion in an online database such as Fantastic Fiction. You may review the notability factors at WP:AUTHOR for clarification. Cindamuse (talk) 00:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Bejnar puts it best. Notability is not asserted and it certainly isn't shown. Edward321 (talk) 13:55, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't delete. Frank puts it best when he says: 'I consider being a published author to be sufficient assertion of notability to disqualify an article from speedy deletion, simply from reading WP:CSD#A7.' Need a consensus for deletion, speedy or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.117.90 (talk • contribs) — 86.135.117.90 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Note: I am striking out your "don't delete" here because you already !voted "don't delete" above. Only one "vote" per person, please, although you are free to comment as much as you like. (And please sign your comments by adding four tildes ~ at the end of your comment. Thanks.) --MelanieN (talk) 16:34, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. Much of this article is a copyright violation of http://www.amazon.co.uk/Adam-Kolczynski/e/B0044UL5JC/ref=ntt_athr_dp_pel_1 and has been extensively edited accordingly. Cindamuse (talk) 17:54, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete without prejudice for re-creation if sources are developed later to show notability. For now this is a non-notable author of a non-notable book. His book has been published, yes, and it is listed at Amazon, but I could not find a single thing written ABOUT either the book or the author, as required by Wikipedia guidelines. The book was only published this month (13 October 2010 according to Amazon), so it might get some sourcing in the future. --MelanieN (talk) 16:10, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 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.