Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Craig DiLouie


 * 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. Randykitty (talk) 15:47, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Craig DiLouie

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:BLP of a writer, whose claims of notability are not properly referenced to reliable source coverage. Two of the five sources are his own primary source content about himself on his own self-published websites, and the other three are the self-published websites of literary awards that do not count as givers of notability under WP:AUTHOR: the extent to which a literary award counts as a notability claim for a writer is strictly coterminous with the extent to which real media cover the granting of that award as news. A literary award is not a notability-maker if you have to source the nomination or win to the award's own self-published website about itself because media coverage about the award is non-existent. Nothing here is properly sourced for the purposes of establishing that he's notable, and nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be properly sourced. Bearcat (talk) 18:37, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:33, 11 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi Bearcat, I felt I was complying with the WP:SELFPUB rule, and another editor had previously accepted these sources. I replaced the sources as requested, which I hope are satisfactory. There is a citation requested for the claim I was born in New Jersey, but I can't prove that using a link. Should I delete the claim? Notability is not claimed due to the awards but instead under the Wikipedia policy, "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Should I cite reviews following each work? I welcome your guidance to make the page compliant with Wikipedia's policies and ideally remove the AfD. Thank you! Craig DiLouie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zombieapocalypsenow (talk • contribs) 20:13, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete unless a good number of solid independent reliable sources with substantial in-depth coverage of this person can be found. I can't find any, though he seems to get a good number of passing mentions for his expertise in electrical lighting. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:32, 17 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm confused about the application of Wikipedia's policies, which state an author is notable if "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." The above editor comment seems to say the author is only notable if there are articles online that describe the author him or herself. In the case of many authors, there are instead numerous articles written about their work, not them personally, which satisfies the literal text of the Wikipedia policy. I would be happy to cite numerous reviews by reputable reviewers for these books, which have been published by major publishers, nominated for awards, translated in multiple languages, and optioned for screen. I'm really hoping for a dialogue to improve the page, if that's possible. Thank you. Zombieapocalypsenow (talk) 22:12, 17 June 2018 (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.