Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan cramer


 * 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. The Bushranger One ping only 00:19, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Alan cramer

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article about a non-notable author, without references. Unable to find any independent sources. - MrX 22:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Can't find reviews. He self-publishes through Bronx Village Publishers as the article admits. --Colapeninsula (talk) 00:41, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Reviews as well as present best seller ranks for all his works can be found at http://www.amazon.com/Alan-Cramer/e/B004J63XLE/ref=ntt_athr_dp_pel_pop_1
 * WP:CREATIVE requires reviews in reliable sources, not on sites like Amazon that publish anything that anybody writes without checking the author's credentials or the accuracy of the review. I'm not necessarily saying Cramer has reviewed his own books on Amazon, but other authors have done it. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:29, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I also have to add that the opinions of average Joes and Janes don't really amount to much on Wikipedia when it comes to reviews of products. I think that the only way a review on Amazon would really count is if it was written by an Amazon account that was 100% guaranteed to be a notable person, such as if Anne Rice had reviewed one of Cramer's books under her Amazon persona. Even then it'd be suspect because you'd have to ensure 100% that it's her and not an assistant or someone else that wrote a review under her name. Essentially, reviews under Amazon, Goodreads, or any of the "anyone can review" sites are unusable to show notability. Reviews that are considered usable are almost always the type posted in reputable newspapers such as the Village Voice, New York Times, and such. Trade reviews from places such as Publishers Weekly and Kirkus Reviews aren't the greatest, but so far they haven't been completely ruled out as reliable sources.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   05:06, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. I'm fully aware that most of the authors in the urban fiction field are largely ignored by the mainstream press, but this doesn't mean that authors aren't held to the same standards of notability for authors. I found one sole review from Black Issues Book Review, but that seems to be where his recognition largely ended. He's not exactly Nikki Turner and while authors don't have to reach her level of notice to pass notability guidelines, we need more than Amazon reviews and one BI book review to show notability for Cramer.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   06:04, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 16:08, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 16:08, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment – there are a number sources see here at prlog.org but not sure if it's considered an RS. His really name is Mikaeel Abdul-Malik it may help with finding sources. &#9733;&#9734; DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 16:08, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * They're not. Press releases are always considered WP:PRIMARY sources when it comes to showing notability, so they're unusable as far as showing notability goes. They, like other primary sources, are discouraged when it comes to sourcing stuff in general because unless the info in them can be backed up with RS, there's no way to determine if the claims are accurate or not. I'll try searching under his real name, though.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   08:37, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I did a search and brought up nothing of use under his real name.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   08:39, 19 January 2013 (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.