Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopher Othen


 * 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. JForget 13:44, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Christopher Othen

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:BIO. This is one Part of a history of Spam and self promotion by this author on Wikipedia, see also -Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam. Self-promotion and product placement are WP:NOT the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Hu12 (talk) 22:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 00:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 00:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. I'm not certain this was intended as deliberate product placement, although the author has posted a lot of new articles from people associated with Reportage Press that makes me wonder. However, it doesn't really matter. Out of the two sources, one is his agent's site, which isn't independent. The other is a review from the Irish Times, and if there were more articles like this, I'd keep it. However, a quick glance at GNews suggests this is the only article. If this article does stay, this article and the article on the book need merging into one. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete It's not that important a book that it should have its own article. Personally, I regard the 2 book review requirement for books as rather weak for serious non fiction, and would argue that the WP:N rule that being notable does not require that there be a separate article.   DGG ( talk ) 17:38, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete -- A one book author. The subject of his book is notable, but the book itself (also subject to AFD here) is not.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:51, 18 September 2009 (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.