Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/C. S. Burrough


 * 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. Favonian (talk) 12:13, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

C. S. Burrough

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Promotional autobiography of non notable author. Lacks coverage about him in independent reliable sources. There is a lot of sources here but none that are independent reliable sources that give him any real depth of coverage. There is a lot of primary sources that verify the existence of works. (note that the author of this page claims that Burrough's own writing is not primary). The best is a capsule review in the Sydney morning Herald but that's not enough. Claim of "bestselling" is for local listing for a niche market only. Not a national open one. Worldcat shows a highest holdings of 8 libraries. Search of NewsBank and Trove came up with nothing better. Last afd Articles for deletion/C S Burrough closed as no consensus largely due to low participation. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:59, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * comment Not remotely "promotional" - subject is a national icon QLitBabel (talk) 08:07, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:07, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:07, 7 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment It reads like something from the publisher's marketing department, I have trimmed back some of the unsourced name dropping. Theroadislong (talk) 12:19, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. Although the article claims the subject is in A Guide to Gay and Lesbian Writing in Australia, a search in that book for Burrough comes up empty.  The best bet to notability still looks to be WP:NAUTHOR.  I'm seeing two books, with the latter (Or Forever Be Damned) having two reviews; I wasn't able to verify reviews for Keeping the Family Name.  The article has enough problems (promo, primary sourcing) that WP:TNT may be relevant. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:10, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment The 1996 edition of A Guide to Gay and Lesbian Writing in Australia does not come up empty QLitBabel (talk) 13:25, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I read just fine, and clicking on the link for the book that is in the article, then copying and pasting "Burrough" into the search box reports "no results". Searching in the book for other authors seems to work.  If the link is broken, please provide an alternative here.  Meanwhile, I recommend that you read WP:CIVIL. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:59, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * took to heart WP:CIVIL, and removed comments. The thought behind that is a very good one.  I've edited to strike instead of removing (in two places), per WP:REDACT, as editors have already responded. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 06:48, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe the reason a google book search comes up empty is that pages 31+ are omitted from the book preview? Page 30 ends at Be. Short of Bu. duffbeerforme (talk) 02:31, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Google Books usually allows you to search also in the parts that it won't show you in preview (but will show only snippet results). Or are you saying that their scan is cut off before the end of the book?  Given how marginal any notability seems to be (and in light of WP:TNT situation), I'm uncertain whether it makes so much difference. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:48, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Indeed Russ Woodroofe, as per your note to be "more civil" (while treated with 0 civility) I edited my comment - yours, conversely, show you're in no glasshouse to throw bricks. "Trolling" not "editing" applies here, making you next up for report QLitBabel (talk) 07:18, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete: An extensive google search found only primary sources, Q&As, or unrelated news stories. Nothing that I found contributes to WP:GNG and therefore fails. However, I am free to change my opinion if I somehow missed anything. Colin Bear  ( talk  - contributions) 17:47, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Allow independent creation of the article which would address the issues raised by nom. But delete for now. Orientls (talk) 02:45, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Illogical afd idea when this article’s earlier afd tag (22 August) was only just removed 3 weeks ago on 13 September due to no consensus (see Articles for deletion/C S Burrough) QLitBabel (talk) 03:14, 8 October 2021 (UTC).
 * Delete per nom, fails WP:GNG and WP:NWRITER, can find no significant in-depth coverage of him anywhere. Theroadislong (talk) 06:47, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment As rogue elements duffbeerforme and User:Theroadislong are currently pending results of complaints re this topic, neither are eligible to comment. —  — Preceding unsigned comment added by QLitBabel (talk • contribs) 08:32, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Rogue elements!!!! Please link to the complaint, I can't see one?Theroadislong (talk) 07:34, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Theroadislong I'm not your mother, find link yourself (it's out there) QLitBabel (talk) 07:37, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: For the benefit of other users participating in this discussion, could you point us in the right direction, please? I checked the "What links here?" for both users but nothing jumped out at me. Thanks! —   OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk; please &#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me in replies) 11:07, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: I note that the article describes Burrough as one of the earliest HIV+ authors in Australia to come out publicly about HIV status. That might make him notable in itself — the cultural history of the Early AIDS Crisis is a particularly under-served area on enwiki — so it would be useful if we (all) could spend a little time looking for relevant sources on that basis too. Having not yet done so, I'm not yet comfortable voting to keep. That said, seeing the article relisted on AfD shortly after a deletion discussion that was relisted twice and mentioned on 3 different deletion lists yet still only managed to get 4 users to care enough and 2 votes, suggests there is no consensus to delete. Relisting it because the consensus didn't fall the way the proposer wanted feels like sour grapes and not the best use of editors' time, frankly. If there was no consensus to delete after trying to attract editors to the discussion last time, trying again until you get the desired roll of the dice doesn't feel like the kind of good faith we are meant to assume. —   OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk; please &#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me in replies) 11:07, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I have searched but can find no mention of Burrough being one of the first to come out publicly about his HIV status, except for his Wikipedia article anybody else found anything? Theroadislong (talk) 14:38, 9 October 2021 (UTC)


 * On the procedural note, I agree it's a little soon after the last AfD -- WP:RENOM suggests waiting 2 months after a no consensus outcome, with the suggestion a bit less urgent when the AfD failed mainly due to lack of participation (as it did here). It's only been about 1 month.  However, the article and possible COI of its originator have been under discussion at WP:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard.  The increased attention does make it more likely to get significant participation. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 12:02, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete, does not mee WP:NAUTHOR, work is not significant or well known, Or Forever Be Damned has two reviews (SMH, and HNS, so technically meets WP:NBOOK but this is not enough for a wikiartlicle on the author. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:13, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. This article has a few claims to notability in it, but none of them seem to hold up to sourcing and WP:V.  I didn't find anything about the subjects role in the early HIV pandemic.  There are two books with two reviews each listed (for a possible bare-minimum pass of WP:NAUTHOR, but I didn't succeed in verifying those for the first book (and I have real concerns about veracity in the article, given the claim in the article to coverage in A Guide to Gay and Lesbian Writing in Australia, which does not seem to hold up).  Overall, this looks a bit WP:TOOSOON to me, and the article is anyway in poor enough shape for WP:TNTing. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:13, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete This is a very highly promotional biography, and could be deleted on that basis regardless of notability. It's advertising for the books, and advocacy for the individual's causes. See especially the Early life section) If he is considered notable,  it's indeed a case forTNT, as suggested just above. As for the earlier AfD, a no-consensus close can be appropriately followed by another afd without much delay--it is good practice to wait at least a few weeks instead of doing it immediate in order to avoid another no-consensus close. I don't see that as a problem, especially because we do seem to be approaching consensus now. DGG ( talk ) 06:15, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. Lavalizard101 (talk) 11:37, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.   scope_creep Talk  17:38, 13 October 2021 (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.