Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew David King


 * 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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Andrew David King

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article is about a precocious high school sophomore who edits a non-notable web site that publishes fiction/poetry by unknown writers. He has apparently been published in the apparently non-notable "Other Voices International Project" which has a web site. There is no evidence of other publications. The subject is thus not-notable per our guidelines at WP:BIO, specifically those in the section on "creative professionals." Apparently a smart, creative, and ambitious high school kid but not someone who warrants a Wikipedia article at this time. Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Bigtimepeace,

Thank you for your comments. I understand the reason why you are nominating the article regarding me for deletion. But please, before you delete this article, allow me to explain myself and answer some of your concerns.

The citations provided on my page are of third-party publications, save for my Blogspot account, the Wings of Icarus webpage, and my nonfiction page. Everything else involves writing that was published by a third party. I have had my poetry published in many different venues, by many different people and different crowds. If you would like a complete list of these citations, please visit my Blogspot page at http://andrewdavidking.blogspot.com, where they are individually listed and cited, as well are critical reviews I have received from other authors.

Apparently, a while back, the page was edited to show all of my publication history—maybe you didn’t see that. Around 15-20 magazines were listed.

Also, the user Dissolve posed the issue that I had “no credible third-party publications”. Should links to all of my published works be posted in order to verify this? That is possible, if it is a necessity. However, I find this a huge irony given that Dissolve has absolutely no citations whatsoever for his own abilities and claims that he makes on his page.

In continuation of my argument, here is a list of pages on which no (or very little) citations are provided. These are only a few authors I happened to click on in the “B” section of “Category:American writers”:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Batson http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davey_Beauchamp http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Beinhocker http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leila_Bela http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hy_Bender http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Lundwall —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.137.172.169 (talk) 00:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Most of these pages have no citations; some only have two or three. As I review my page’s History, I can see that at one point, it had eighteen references. Still, if you feel that my page is rightly being deleted, then I, of course, can reasonably expect the same thing to happen to the above listed pages. You can’t apply different standards of judgment to selective pieces—if this is possible, then by definition, no standards exist in Wikipedia.

Also, I disagree with you that the Other Voices International Poetry Project is non-notable. Participants in the project have been Luis J. Rodriguez, Ursula K. Le Guin, Jimmy Santiago Baca, Lisa Zaran, and Sheema Kalbasi. All of these people exist on Wikipedia. So, are they not-notable as well?

Thank you for your time, thanks for hearing me out on this. I'm leaving it up to you, now.

Andrew KingAndrew King (talk) 00:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Classic case of why we recommend against writing your own Wikipedia entry. Sure, there are some name-checks out there, but the best we seem to be able to do for a reliable source is a newsletter from the diocese which runs the school the subject attends, hardly independent. We need major independent sources treating the topic in some depth to judge whether there is true notability (a word which means something specific in Wikipedia terms). The editor above, if the subject, is using what about X? and commutative deletion arguments that are not applicable to our project. Each topic must demonstrate its own notability, and notability does not transfer from one topic to another connected topic, nor do all topics of a certain type have or lack notability. --Dhartung | Talk 01:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. The subject may well be notable in the future but the article lacks reliable sources uindicating notability at th moment. Capitalistroadster (talk) 01:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Just having been published does not establish notability, especially if the publication is not itself notable. Andrew King, you seem to be a talented and ambitious individual, so don't take it as an insult that you don't merit a Wikipedia article at this time. --L. Pistachio (talk) 01:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:BIO. I agree with Dhartung that the only reliable source cited amounts to trivial coverage (WP:BIO). I would ask Andrew King to refer to Conflict of interest in regards to participating in deletion discussions related to yourself. I think you are confusing a user page with an encyclopedia article, but please take up any issues you might have with my user page up with me on my talk page.  dissolve  talk  01:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. As the creator of this article, I find that the arguments by Dissolve and Dhartung fail to recognize the hypocrisy of their own statements. In the statement above, apparently written by the subject himself, several citations are made to pages that have far less credibility than the page Andrew David King.  However, neither Dissolve or Dhartung will agree to recognize this because it exposes them as blatant hypocrites.  Maybe the subject was right.  Does Wikipedia have a standard of judgment, or does it not?  I believe that is the question.  I will refrain from using specific examples as the subject himself does above, but it is this simple: if there is not a common standard by which to judge all related articles, then no one here is truly striving for an accurate encyclopedia.  RMX2245 (talk) 02:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)RMX2245


 * Dhartung in referring to Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions and his further comments, summed up the response to these arguments. dissolve  talk  02:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * RMX2245, you will probably find that calling other editors "blatant hypocrites" does not get you very far in an AfD debate (or in any other argument on Wikipedia). The fact that there are other articles which may warrant deletion but have not been listed for AfD does not mean that this article should be kept, just as the argument "other people were speeding too" will seldom convince a traffic cop not to give you a ticket if you were doing 64 in a 45.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly. If anyone believes that a certain article is lacking in references and is non-notable, then they may nominate it for deletion. If the articles you (Andrew King) listed are lacking in references or importance, then they, too, should be deleted (or at least nominated for such). However, it is up to someone to put them forth for deletion, because this is an impossibly big encyclopedia, and everyone can't be expected to check every article every day for notability. It is the responsibility of users to call attention to articles that deserve review, and just because no one has done so for a specific article does NOT mean that the article is justified in existing. It just means no one noticed it yet. So in summary, the fact that your article was put up for deletion before those other ones is not a sign of some secret conspiracy, it's a sign of inefficiency in finding unacceptable articles. But there's a good chance that now that they've been brought to the attention of editors on this deletion debate that some or all of them will end up facing their own deletion nomination. In fact, if they truly offend you, you can put the up for deletion yourself. But either way, their existence will not weigh in anyone's decision regarding your article. --Ig8887 (talk) 15:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Fails WP:BIO and WP:COI. Vultureofbook (talk) 10:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Publication in non-notable works is still non-notable, or else anyone could get into Wikipedia by self-publishing via Lulu or CafePress. Remember that having or not having a Wikipedia article does not in any way indicate your worth as a human being or a writer. Heck, I'm a professional writer—that's my "day job"—and I've never written anything that would qualify as "notable" by Wikipedia standards. Thus, I don't have my own Wiki article, and I manage to live a happy, healthy life with a successful writing career nonetheless. --Ig8887 (talk) 15:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid argument. Lots of us are professional writers without deserving our own WP articles. -- Orange Mike  |  Talk  16:22, 30 January 2008 (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.