Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward J Kelly


 * 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. Marskell 13:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Edward_J_Kelly

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Seemingly unnotable author, no sources mentioning him are provided. Russeasby 16:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Okay, the first part seems like a possible WP:COPYVIO from http://www.edwardjkelly.com/main.html (which is where all the sources came from), unless, of course, the guy who wrote that also wrote this article, in which case there is a probable conflict of interest.  Useight 16:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Could Russeasby please clearly state which sources do not mention this author. There are now several sources clearly mentioned on the page.  I would respectfully suggest that Russeasby has not taken the time to check his facts before issuing blanket statements - "no sources mentioning him are provided".  This is clearly wrong.  Within about half an hour of starting this page Russeasby was on my case and continued to bombard me with how the page should be developed.  I am new to Wikipedea and am willing to take advice but cannot work whilst being dictated to.  This seems to be a common trait of the honourable Russeasby by the looks of comments received from his other attempts at editing.  User (useight) claims there is a possible copyvio - I assume this means copy violation.  I can't believe that he then goes on to cite my source of the information which I clearly provided a link to on the page.  I wasn't trying to hide anything or claim that the information was my own work.  I clearly stated my source.  Further to all this... my password is blocked on wikipedea and I am unable to sign in.  Did Russeasby have it blocked?  Mike P. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.195.92.73 (talk • contribs)
 * Delete as nonsense. I am not exactly sure if he's a nn conspiracy theorist, or a NN novelist. DGG 02:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * "Delete' - one publication on Lulu.com, and 20 unique Google refs when searching for his name plus Mdina Touch, the book title. Fails WP:BIO. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Response - Tony Fox claims that this author fails the WP:BIO. Upon first glance at the requirements it clearly states as number one - "The person has been the subject of published1 secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject."  There are several sources quoted on the page.  I have asked that it be clearly stated which of these sources are not deemed to be reliable.  No one has done this.  Your opinions are subjective and do not reflect any objectivity nor are they backed up by substantial research.  The information I have provided is backed up by research and I have quoted my sources.  Google is not the be all and end all of the world.  It seems clear to me that Russeasby was determined to have this page deleted right from the start.  As I have said earlier, he immediately issued a "noteworthy notice" when I was still in the process of entering the information onto the page - I hadn't even had chance to finish typing the information never mind editing it.  I strongly feel that the due process has not been followed and that a new person to wikepedea has been jumped on by someone who has a track record of doing this to other people.  Russeasby's bombastic approach to this (and I feel his other editing) is entirely uncalled for and he is certainly in no position to take a superior stance on this.  His communications display bad manners in the extreme for a man that has taken on an editorial role.  He quite openly boasts about his appalling spelling.  When I went to school I was taught that it was the height of bad manners and a sign of low breeding to send a communication containing spelling mistakes.  Is he thumbing his nose at common decency and then expecting other people to correct his errors?  I can see a trend here where he clearly does not bother to look up spellings in a dictionary and similarly does not bother to check references/ sources when they are given.  Following the initial attack on my article, I have taken the trouble to look up how other author's pages have been referenced.  There are many that provide only one source and some none.  This then leads me to wonder why Russeasby has not jumped on these.  I do, however, sense the Ides of March and wishing to remain magnanimous I will anticipate the foregone conclusion and subjugation of this page by Russeasby.  The article is now removed.  I do, however, remain happy to send photocopies of the relevant newspaper articles to anyone who wishes to see them.  Russeasby remains wrong in his judgements and this author is well known, certainly in Liverpool, and broadly throughout the UK.  He is not, however, as far as I know, a member of any yachting circles - maybe therein lies the narrowmindedness and egocentricity.  My password remains blocked which is a revelation in itself.  Clearly Russeasby does not want me to enter into the debate.  I therefore withdraw from Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by  80.195.92.73 (talk • contribs)
 * Where this users personal attacks are coming from are beyond me. Note the only communication I have had with him is on his talk page where I attempted to offer helpful advice, see User_talk:Mike-P21. Russeasby 13:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Certainly, that discussion is civil, and similar to the help that I and others routinely offer to promising new editors who are contributing positively, as this editor has done by creating an article that may actually be worth keeping, depending on sources. Looking at the diff before the blanking, it certainly needs a cleanup and proper referencing, and it is difficult to assess the value of the sources in their current state (devoid of crucial information). I'll opt for a weak keep on the proviso that notability be better established ASAP. Adrian   M. H.  15:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Following the useful advice from Adrian (many thanks) I would be more than happy to provide photocopies of the newspaper sources. I don't know how else I can do this.  If someone could advise I will do what I can to oblige.  I don't know what I can do about the radio interviews... I don't have a recording of them.  Please don't just say "sources needed to establish notability".  Please tell me exactly what to do.  At the moment I am unsure what more I can do.  I have provided the names and dates of newspapers.  I'm willing to have one last go.  Mike P.
 * Delete. No compelling case for meeting the notability guidelines combined with the fact that the article reads more like an advert for the book.-- Kubigula (talk) 22:00, 24 May 2007 (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.