Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Wong (writer)


 * 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   keep. (non-admin closure) Go   Phightins  !  23:09, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

David Wong (writer)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Known only by movie and book, suggest merging this article into John Dies at the End Soxwon (talk) 23:10, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 *  Strong Delete not notable. David Wong is not even this person's name. The book is not notable, and the "movie" is an online web-serial. This person is an admin/mod on two websites, and that is the limit of notability. Wikipedia is not a Fanzine. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉  23:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you are confused. The movie will be released in theaters on January 25, 2013 See:Magnet buys 'John Dies at the End' -- Esemono (talk) 03:09, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Ample coverage of him on multiple reliable sources. He clearly passes WP:ENTERTAINER #1 and #2, as his episodes and other work are seen by millions.  Also WP:CREATIVE #4 since his work has "won significant critical attention". -- Esemono (talk) 03:09, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, it helps to actually read the secondary sources you are talking about his book. The rest are blogs, youtube vids, cracked articles etc. Again, as with DOB, WP:CREATIVE and #1 for WP:ENTERTAINER fail, you need to come up with better arguments. Soxwon (talk) 04:34, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. The subject surely passes WP:AUTHOR #3 and #4 as his work "has been the subject of a... feature-length film", received "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" and "has won significant critical attention". The same references of the article include many secondary reliable sources. I don't see where is the problem here, and the same nominator fails to give a valid reason for deletion (as "known only by movie and book" surely is not). Cavarrone (talk) 07:07, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Seriously? WP:AUTHOR #4? Are you high? #4 is for works in famous galleries or famous anthologies, Wong's book fails MISERABLY. #3 is iffy, and right on the borderline. Soxwon (talk) 01:57, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Wong's latest book is currently on the New York Times best seller list? How is that a fail? -- Esemono (talk) 04:19, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * If the WP:AUTHOR criterium was intended just for "famous galleries or famous anthologies", it was written so. About the "tiffy" argument, recently there was an attempt to tighten up the third criterium and clearly failed to raise consensus from the community. Finally, please be civil and edit with your username, as everyone has understood who you are. Cavarrone (talk) 05:46, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Who is it? I hope you don't think the IP editor is me just because I'm the only other person who wants to delete. Besides I have to admit that some of these arguments are swaying me over. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 22:25, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * My point was that Wong's book was not anywhere close to being in the category of book being described. It is not a lauded, notable book to the point where it would be considered a part of anthologies or of that level of notability. Soxwon (talk) 01:57, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * FWIW there is no guideline for best seller status, it should not be used to judge notability. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 09:53, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Also article from the Chicago Daily Herald ( "David Wong returns in intriguing 'This Book is Full of Spiders'" Associated Press, 12 October 2012 Chicago Daily Herald)Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:19, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep.His book was on the New York Times Best seller list (Book Review Desk, 21 October 2012, The New York Times p 26)
 * Keep: George Sand is not a real name, either. In any event, Wong has written two well-reviewed books (the other being This Book Is Full of Spiders: Seriously, Dude, Don't Touch It). A clear pass of WP:AUTHOR. Faustus37 (talk) 11:25, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't need to be high to point out his anthology for Cracked.com is a New York Times Bestseller.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rocketsteam100 (talk • contribs) 03:39, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 8 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep - Having a book on the NYtimes list is notable enough. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 22:27, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Nope. There is no rule for best seller status. There was an attempt to add it into the guidelines and it did not get consensus. Best seller status should not be used when judging notability of books/authors. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 09:48, 9 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Wong wrote a book which is being adapted to a movie, a sequel to that book, manages a very popular website and forums, and writes numerous articles read by thousands. How is this man not notable? Because he's on the internet and uses a pseudonym? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.62.161.188 (talk) 16:56, 10 December 2012 (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.