Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Bibby


 * 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. Shimeru (talk) 19:55, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

James Bibby

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

No coverage in reliable sources. Mkativerata (talk) 10:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - Contrary to the nom’s assertion that there is no coverage for the subject, I have found references in support of the subject's notability, including this 3rd party review of Bibby’s sci/fi-humour novels; this book review; and this link to Fantastic Fiction which has a bibliography of James Bibby's books, with the latest releases, covers, descriptions and availability. Also his IMBD page also confirms that he is a TV writer, further verifying his notability. This is enough to meet WP:AUTHOR. Andy14and16 (talk) 02:38, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You have just successfully hit 4 out of 4 plainly unreliable sources. Anyone can write a review on iTrackmine (FAQ page); Fantastic Fiction is a self-described family website - who knows how they verify their content; the spelling errors kind of give away Edlin as being unreliable; and it is a long-standing consensus that IMDB is an unreliable source. Not the stuff upon which encyclopaedic articles can be built. Certainly not for biographies of living persons. Your dogged attempts to save this article from deletion are valiant, but please have due regard to our requirements for sources. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Not covered in depth by secondary sources as required by WP:N. I know that WP articles are not required to be interesting but this one is a good example of uninterestingness being a side effect of being unnotable. The article says nothing but that he's a writer and lists his books. Having said all that I wish him well in his career. Kitfoxxe (talk) 07:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep It currently reads: "This resulted in an invitation to join the writing team on Three of a Kind (TV series), and then O.T.T. (the adult follow-up to Tiswas)." Did the invitation result in him working for either or both of these two notable shows?  If so, he is notable enough, based on his work.  If not, the hell with him, I don't see him listed anywhere else.   D r e a m Focus  11:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, he was a writer for both of those notable shows, so he is notable WP:CREATIVE. Andy14and16 (talk) 12:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:CREATIVE requires that "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.". Being a writer for two TV shows doesn't necessarily meet this requirement, there has to be some indication that those have been very well recieved by independent sources such as a lot of reviews, a book or movie adaptation, etc.  -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 21:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete unless he has been the primary subject of non-trivial coverage in reliable independent sources. None are cited as yet. Notability is primarily about sources, the guidelines describe the kind of people who will probably have sources, they are not a magic wand to prevent deletion of articles without them. Guy (Help!) 14:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, policy is law in Wikipedia, the guideline are just suggestions to help people make a decision. This person has met the Wikipedia requirement of WP:Verify.  Their notability is determined by consensus of whoever is around at the time to comment.   D r e a m Focus  16:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete for lack of reliable sources that establish notability. Blogs, fanzines and IMDB don't really cut it. Reyk  YO!  21:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: no reliable sources can be found. personal websites and databases aren't enough to meet Wikipedia standards, which most editors support, even in this discussion. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:55, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete No reliable sources found establishing that he passes either WP:GNG or WP:CREATIVE. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:54, 6 May 2010 (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.