Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Merron


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 01:09, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

David Merron

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:BLP, clearly created for promotional purposes, of a writer whose debut book is still a month away from a future publication date, and whose article is sourced entirely to promotional content on the websites of the book's publishers. As always, the qualification that gets a writer into Wikipedia is "the writer is the subject of reliable source coverage supporting a claim of notability that satisfies WP:AUTHOR", not "the writer exists". Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if and when RS coverage starts showing up. Bearcat (talk) 07:30, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

It seems that I may have done something incorrect with this page. My apologies if I have, I am only an occasional Wiki editor. However, I did some research and thought that I was following Wikipedia guidelines. So, in the spirit of assuming good faith I'll try and address your obvious concerns. Firstly, this is not 'clearly' created for any purposes other than to highlight the writer of a forthcoming book, with a major Worldwide publisher. I don't work for them and there is no promotional content on the page. I am/was not aware that a book had to be formally past its publishing date, before it was mentioned. With regards to the sources linking to the publisher, I added these after another editor pointed out that at least one source needed to be added. I followed the guidelines under Identifying_reliable_sources where it mentions "The publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press)". Anyway, I'm not going to argue this point further and am happy to leave it up to more experienced editors to decide about this. But please, let's keep this civil and not jump to conclusions about people's motives. Bonzobonce (talk) 10:35, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * We don't have a rule that all works of literature have to be past its publication date before they can be mentioned on here at all — if the writer has previously published other works and thus already satisfies WP:AUTHOR, then announced future works are allowed to be added to their article. But if the basic claim of notability is resting entirely on a debut work that hasn't been published yet, then the author hasn't yet satisfied the basic criterion that would allow them to have an article to mention the book in — the basic notability criterion for writers does require that at least one book has already been published and garnered media coverage (or that they already qualified for an article for other reasons independently of publishing a book.) And while the website of the book's publisher is a valid source for verifying the fact of the book's publication, it cannot confer notability in and of itself — it's not an independent source which demonstrates that he's received coverage for the fact of the book. It's valid for confirming the fact of the book's existence if enough other sources are already present in the article to cover off the notability issue, but it cannot satisfy the notability issue in and of itself — sources that are reliable for the confirmation of facts, and sources which can actually demonstrate that the topic satisfies our notability rules, are two different things. I'll grant that promotion may not have been your intention, but there is a longstanding pattern on Wikipedia that such things are usually contributed by the publisher themselves or a public relations agent. Bearcat (talk) 18:01, 5 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - WP:TOOSOON. I don't agree it's created for promotional purposes and editor's history shows nothing that would indicate a connection with subject or book. Sounds like an interesting book, but we need to wait until it's released or has enough material to warrant an article on the book or the author. —Мандичка YO 😜 13:01, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 4 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete No indication that the book passes notability guidelines, and that is the only thing that it is asserted Merron might pass notability guidelines for.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:51, 7 June 2015 (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.