Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erik Daniel Shein (author)


 * 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   no consensus. Borderline notability, but it appears to be established (barely). Both sides of argument have strong cases. No consensus to delete (✉→ BWilkins ←✎) 11:40, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Erik Daniel Shein (author)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

spam from Voidz. non notable author, awards are not major, lacks notable works, lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. mix of local puff and listings. I found nothing better. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:20, 18 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete This is a spam article created by an account which shows every sign of being a professional promoter, who has a history of creating numerous unsuitable articles and adding dubious or even downright fake references to give a spurious impression of notability. This article is no exception. Only one of the five references even mentions Shein, and that one is a page on a business promotion site. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:17, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 18 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep While I don't like to reward anyone for paying to get an article on Wikipedia, this person appears to be notable. One reason neither we nor the editor for hire was able to locate good sources was because the subject uses the name Erik Stoops in writing and on camera. The article as it is does not do this subject justice. Joja  lozzo  01:58, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I have no idea why you assume that "we" failed to "locate good sources" because we didn't look for Erik Daniel Stoops as well as for Erik Daniel Shein. I can't speak for anyone else, but I searched not only for Erik Stoops and Erik Shein separately, but also for both together, in each case both with and without the middle name. I found Wikipedia, Linkedin, Amazon (selling his work), IMDb, Wikipedia mirrors, publishers' sites, publicity and advertising sites (e.g www.publishersmarketplace.com), books by him, not about him, and so on and so on, but nothing resembling significant coverage in a reliable independent source. If you can do better, please let us know, but so far you have merely stated that he "appears to be" notable, but you have provided no sources to show that he is. You may find it helpful to look at WP:ITSNOTABLE. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:13, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I apologize for implying any lack of capability on anyone's part here and for failing to include sources. Stoops has an entry in Contemporary Authors, New Revision Series, January 1, 2004 (available by subscription on Highbeam or Gale Cengage). That entry includes references to reviews of his books:
 * Appraisal,
 * winter-spring, 1996, Eileen Egizi and James Knittle, review of Sharks, p. 59;
 * summer, 1996, Peg Ciszek and Melinda Cote, review of Whales, p. 35;
 * fall, 1998, Deborah Lymer and Augusta Malvagno, review of Wolves and Their Relatives, p. 25.
 * Booklist,
 * January 1, 1995, Mary Harris Veeder, review of Alligators and Crocodiles, p. 820;
 * December 1, 1995, Hazel Rochman, review of Whales, p. 630;
 * May 1, 1997, Lauren Peterson, review of Dolphins, p. 1492;
 * November 1, 1997, Patricia Braun, review of Wolves and Their Relatives, p. 469.
 * Horn Book Guide,
 * spring, 1997, Danielle J. Ford, review of Dolphins, p. 128.
 * School Library Journal,
 * October, 1994, Frances E. Millhouser, review of Sharks, pp. 140-141;
 * March, 1995, Susan Oliver, review of Alligators and Crocodiles, p. 220;
 * January, 1996, Frances E. Mill-houser, review of Whales, 126;
 * July, 1997, Lisa Wu Stowe, review of Dolphins, p. 88;
 * January, 1998, Lisa Wu Stowe review of Wolves and Their Relatives, pp. 132-133;
 * May, 2001, Arwen Marshall, review of Bears, p. 141;
 * January, 2002, Karey Wehner, review of Bat Basics, pp. 127-128.
 * Science Activities,
 * spring, 1997, Donald J. Nash, review of Dolphins, p. 45.
 * and it lists all his publications as of 2002:
 * Writings;
 * (With Annette T. Wright) Snakes and Other Reptiles of the Southwest, Golden West (Phoenix, AZ), 1992.
 * (With Annette T. Wright) Boas & Pythons: Breeding and Care, TFH Publications (Neptune City, NJ), 1993.
 * For children;
 * (With Annette T. Wright) Snakes, Sterling Publishing (New York, NY), 1992.
 * (With mother, Sherrie L. Stoops) Sharks, illustrated by Jeffrey L. Martin, Sterling Publishing (New York, NY), 1994.
 * Penguins and Seals (CD-ROM), Emerging Technology Consultants, 1994.
 * (With Debbie Lynne Stone) Alligators and Crocodiles, Sterling Publishing (New York, NY), 1994.
 * (With Jeffrey L. Martin and Debbie Lynne Stone) Whales, Sterling Publishing (New York, NY), 1995.
 * (With Jeffrey L. Martin) Scorpions and Venomous Insects of the Southwest, Golden West Publishers (Phoenix, AZ), 1995.
 * (With Jeffrey L. Martin and Debbie Lynne Stone) Dolphins, Sterling Publishing (New York, NY), 1996.
 * (With Dagmar Fertl) Wolves and Their Relatives, Sterling Publishing (New York, NY), 1997.
 * The Teiidaes, Faulkner's Publishing (Benton Harbor, MI), 1997.
 * Skinks, Faulkner's Publishing (Benton Harbor, MI), 1997.
 * Geckos and Their Relatives, Faulkner's Publishing (Benton Harbor, MI), 1997.
 * Beaded and Monitor Lizards, Faulkner's Publishing (Benton Harbor, MI), 1997.
 * Chameleons and Agamids, Faulkner's Publishing (Benton Harbor, MI), 1997.
 * Iguanids and Their Relatives, Faulkner's Publishing (Benton Harbor, MI), 1997.
 * (With Dagmar Fertl and Michelle Reddy) Bears, Sterling Publishing (New York, NY), 2000.
 * For Children (with Kimberly Williams);
 * The Banded Penguins, Faulkner's Publishing (Benton Harbor, MI), 2000.
 * Bat Basics, Faulkner's Publishing (Benton Harbor, MI), 2000.
 * Bat Conservation, Faulkner's Publishing (Benton Harbor, MI), 2000.
 * Bats That Drink Nectar, Faulkner's Publishing (Benton Harbor, MI), 2000.
 * Bats That Eat Fruit, Faulkner's Publishing (Benton Harbor, MI), 2000.
 * Bats That Eat Insects, Faulkner's Publishing (Benton Harbor, MI), 2000.
 * The Brush-Tailed Penguins, Faulkner's Publishing (Benton Harbor, MI), 2000.
 * The Crested Penguins, Faulkner's Publishing (Benton Harbor, MI), 2000.
 * The Little Blue Penguins, Faulkner's Publishing (Benton Harbor, MI), 2000.
 * Vampire Bats, Faulkner's Publishing (Benton Harbor, MI), 2000.
 * The Yellow-Eyed Penguins, Faulkner's Publishing (Benton Harbor, MI), 2000.
 * The Large Penguins, Faulkner's Publishing (Benton Harbor, MI), 2002.
 * Joja lozzo  17:32, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * "Contemporary Authors" tries to be as comprehensive a reference as possible, including virtually any genuinely published author, excluding only vanity- published authors and the like. While this means it is invaluable as a source of information, it means that it is useless as evidence of notability. You say that it "includes references to reviews", but what are those reviews? Are they in-depth reviews, or simply a couple of sentences doing little more than tell us of the existence of the books? And simply providing a list of an author's works does nothing at all to show whether he is notable. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:32, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Those are all good points. I was only able to find archives for School Library Journal and they want a fee so I stopped there. Maybe someone else here has access to a library with an an SLJ account. Joja  lozzo  16:17, 20 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - Promotional piece not backed by multiple published independent sources. Carrite (talk) 00:25, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep notable author as shown by the reviews, which meet WP:CREATIVE. Not promotional--how can an article that consists almost entirely of a bibliography listing the published works & the awards for them be promotional rather than informative? Earlier versions were indeed a little on the promotional side, but TokyoGirl took care of that. I think an earlier editor accidentally removed a reliable source I found, Gale Contemporary Authors, a standard encyclopedic work we have widely accepted as proving notability. I've added it back just now.    DGG ( talk ) 04:26, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JohnCD (talk) 15:58, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. Fails the stringent requirements of WP:AUTHOR, WP:BK, and WP:GNG. Qworty (talk) 23:15, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Created by sockpuppet/paid editor/spammer.  WP:PROMO  PeterWesco (talk) 01:55, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * This is ad hominem. Please, comment on the content and not on the contributer. By the way, the article creator was not a scokpuppet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.218.189.238 (talk • contribs) 10:01, 1 May 2013  — 101.218.189.238 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep as the author meets WP:GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.218.189.238 (talk) 10:01, 1 May 2013 (UTC)  — 101.218.189.238 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep. I think that the sources described above allow the subject to at least meet the bare minimum of notability requirements, and it should be maintained. I don't think PROMO applies here. The article isn't really promotional- just lacking in content. Ducknish (talk) 21:14, 2 May 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.