Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dustin Warburton (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Daniel (talk) 23:46, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Dustin Warburton
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Subject appears to still fail our WP:GNG SarahStierch (talk) 17:56, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete This non-notable author was non-notable in 2011, as explained incisively at that time by, and remains non-notable in the final days of 2013.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  04:19, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete (striking Delete, see below) Well, well. Another SPA-written stub about this person. This time, in addition to his non-notable self-published books, he has co-written (which probably means ghost-written) a book with Dennis Rodman. That book did attract some mainstream notice, but all of the coverage was about super-celeb Rodman, with at best a passing mention of Warburton. Notability is not inherited, and Warburton does not meet WP:BIO or WP:AUTHOR. --MelanieN (talk) 15:15, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment WP:AUTHOR allows for co-authors. It says "played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work .. that has been the subject of .. multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." (emphasis added). A ghost writer is usually afforded the same notability as the book subject. I have not researched this particular book to see how notable it is but co-author is valid grounds for arguing for notability. The reviews don't need to mention the author, CREATIVE is based on reviews of works, not the artist personally (GNG is about the person). --  GreenC  21:02, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a notable ghost writer per AUTHOR (comment above). Some coverage of Dennis the Wild Bull: NY Daily News, NESN, MLive, CBS Chicago, Yahoo Sports, Time magazine, USA Today, Sports Illustrated, CTV News, NBC Sports. As a ghost writer he will naturally not be mentioned in the sources but the sources cover the work which is what CREATIVE #3 is about, reviews of the works of which he is a co-creator. -- GreenC  21:16, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment I was unaware of the "co-creator" loophole in the WP:AUTHOR notability guidelines, and I don't agree with it. It apparently provides that even the most obscure ghostwriter will become "notable" if they happen to hook up with a famous person - and thus co-produce something which receives coverage because of the famous person's involvement. Looks like WP:INHERITED to me. A guideline is a guideline and presumably was based on consensus, so I am striking my "delete" !vote above; however, I can't bring myself to !vote "keep" for a subject I still regard as non-notable. --MelanieN (talk) 15:31, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Though just writing for a famous person isn't enough, need multiple reviews in reliable sources, not all of Rodman's books have good coverage but Dennis the Wild Bull is exceptional. It's not really a loophole, books are a type of creative work like movies and plays that include multiple people who played a significant role. Usually books are single-authored but in some cases multiple people played a significant role. A book illustrator would be another example if the book had a lot of illustrations. -- GreenC  18:30, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment I read all of the links above, except one that I couldn't reach, and not a single one is a review of the book, or even indicates that the writer was holding a physical copy of the book. Many were published before the book's release. One is a home town paper's profile of the illustrator, in the vein of "local boy makes good". Several mention lack of information about the content, focus on the cover art, the brief summary on the book's website and quote Rodman's interviews mentioning the book. This is all coverage, which one calls "Internet buzz" about a celebrity book event, all focused on the "bad boy writes kid's book" hook. Rodman is notable. The book, lacking actual reviews, isn't in my judgment. And neither is the co-author.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  20:08, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * AUTHOR says "independent periodical articles or reviews". -- GreenC  20:31, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * And we need to conclude that the book is significant or important. That celebrity buzz is very thin gruel for that claim, since I see zero evidence that any of those writers actually read the book, and clear evidence that most of them didn't. It is vapor coverage, at least regarding the book itself.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  20:48, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Rodman has published other books that didn't get this attention. Other celebrity authors publish books that don't get this kind of attention. It's more than "buzz" it's unusual coverage. The sources contain plot outlines - it's a children's picture book so not much else to say - they are all headlined about the book, it's not vapor. Anyway we are not limited to formal reviews only - the notability guidelines are more generous. -- GreenC  21:27, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Rodman has published other books that didn't get this attention. Actually Rodman's best known book, Bad As I Wanna Be, was a best seller - but its ghost writer, Tim Keown, doesn't have a Wikipedia article. The coverage of the current book actually IS "buzz", and as Cullen noted, all of it is a variation on "bad boy writes children's book". None of the buzz is about the CONTENT of the book, which is what Warburton contributed. --MelanieN (talk) 17:45, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Sounds like we need to look into an article for Tim Keown, Wikipedia has gaps of coverage. I'm not sure what "buzz" means, it's a pejorative term without clear definition, but we know what notable means ("significant coverage in reliable sources"). All of these are reliable sources and they are headlined about the book, and contain enough material to write an article about the book (WP:WHYN). Although the sources contain the narrative "bad boy writes book", they also contain information about the book. -- GreenC  17:59, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * There is plenty to be said about children's picture books that are actually notable: they are reviewed, win awards, and are described in books about children's literature. And this co-author fails WP:GNG.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  01:24, 21 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 18:04, 22 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep WP:NOTABILITY is quite clear that a subject is notable if it meets the GNG or one of the subject specific guidelines. You don't have to meet both.  He meets WP:AUTHOR.  A book is Wikipedia notable based on coverage it receives, and he did play a role in creating somethings that would be considered notable by Wikipedia standards.   D r e a m Focus  23:31, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete, I can't bring myself to agree with the assertion made above that someone who is not widely acknowledged as the author of a particular work can gain notability just from being involved. Using this logic being the cameraman of a successful film would catapult one to notability.  As far as I can see there is no substantial sources for this BLP and I think it ought to be deleted.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:56, 26 December 2013 (UTC).
 * It's not just "being involved" you are right, it's a significant role. For movies it's typically director, producer, writer(s) and lead actors. -- GreenC  16:06, 26 December 2013 (UTC)


 * They are not a ghost writer. Their name is on all the books they have written alone or with others.   D r e a m Focus  16:59, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete, IMHO the subject could even pass the letter of WP:AUTHOR but passing a SNG is not a guarantee that a subject should be included in our encyclopedia. Here we have zero chance of passing GNG and even WP:AUTHOR is met in a very borderline way. Not enough in my view. Cavarrone 16:36, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTABILITY is quite clear, you have to pass either the WP:GNG or one of the subject specific guidelines, not both. There is more than one way to prove something is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia.   D r e a m Focus  16:59, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * ...and Notability (people) is also quite clear when it says " meeting one or more (additional criteria) does not guarantee that a subject should be included". I'm not against SNGs, but SNGs are not the "Sacred Tables of the Law". Here the claim of notability is so thin, even under WP:AUTHOR, that IMHO (and in several others opinions, too) does not justify an article. Cavarrone 17:28, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete The books in which he has participated are in essentially zero libraries, according to worldcat. The most I can find for any of them are 4, for Dennis the Wild Bull. The coauthorship issue is therefore irrelevant. DGG ( talk ) 20:08, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete not a notable author, and no reliable sources discuss Warburton, himself, in any depth. I'm very concerned that keeping this would set a precedent by which one can attempt to claim notability through association with a celebrity, an argument that is traditionally rejected (see WP:NOTINHERITED. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  22:31, 29 December 2013 (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.