Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jesse Ruddock


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 13:38, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Jesse Ruddock

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:NAUTHOR. I can find articles and photos BY this person but not ABOUT this person. Only novel is yet unpublished but somehow already has glowing reviews as the article points out. Prod contested by article author. shoy (reactions) 19:36, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment:, it looks like the reviews are actually book blurbs. Blurbs are short comments sought out by the publisher and/or author in the hopes of promoting the work. They are never in-depth, as they're deliberately short so they can be added to the book jacket. In some instances these blurbs are written by people who work for the publisher (as contract authors) and/or are friends of the author (or someone in the company). In some cases the blurbs are so generically written that they can be placed on multiple books, as was the case with a blurb that Charlaine Harris wrote for Laurell K. Hamilton that was placed on at least 4-5 separate books. (In the case of some of these blurbs, it's debatable whether or not the person actually read the book in question.) These are not considered to be usable unless they were part of a longer review published by the blurb writer that can be verified on Wikipedia. In other words, book blurbs are a dime a dozen and don't count towards anything on Wikipedia, regardless of who is being quoted. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  08:03, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It looks like Ruddock reviewed Erpenpeck's book, so we could argue that her book blurb was a kind of "you scratched my back, I'll scratch yours now" type of deal. This doesn't mean that this is what happened, but this is one of the biggest examples as to why we cannot accept book blurbs without something to show that it's part of a longer review published via a reliable source. Offhand I'm not finding much for her that isn't primary. She exists as a creative professional, but existing doesn't automatically give notability regardless of where or who she's worked with. The rationale behind this is that it's expected that a creative professional will be active in their field and put out work. What gives notability isn't the work itself per se, but rather the coverage of said work and of the person themselves. When the book releases and it gains reviews in independnet and reliable sources, then that would give notability. If there were articles written about Ruddock as a photographer or journalist (for example, in the Globe and Mail, assuming she hasn't worked for them), that would help establish notability. However just putting out work by itself is not considered to be automatically noteworthy. (Saying this more for the article creator, who seems to be relatively new to creating articles.) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  08:12, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah - I've found some evidence to suggest that there's an incredibly strong WP:COI here, so I've warned the editor directly. The one thing I want to stress is that none of this should be taken personally. Wikipedia is incredibly strict with its notability guidelines, so it's very, very difficult for authors to pass notability guidelines on Wikipedia. I've seen authors and their books amass relatively large followings online, only for them to fail notability guidelines pretty hard because of the way it's set up. Unfortunately it's unlikely to become any looser, as this strictness came about by necessity because of cases like this one. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  08:17, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I figured as much. It just strikes me as really promotional and WP:NOT that this article would be half blurbs for a book that won't be published until next year. shoy (reactions) 12:21, 21 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete non-notable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:35, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:52, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:52, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:52, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:52, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:53, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as failing WP:NAUTHOR per nomination as well as failing WP:ARTIST for photography. Nothing suggest he has any notability. As far as I can see it's a clear case of WP:TOOSOON. No prejudice for recreation in years to come. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 12:03, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * delete as per WP:TOOSOON (I took a swipe at sourcing it, did a light edit, but it really is TOOSOON. Apparent WP:PROMO.  User:KokoBonaparte would have done better ot wait until after the book comes out.  I do wish to stipulate that if the first novel, scheduled for publication in February 2017, gets, 3 reviews in significant media, and some feature soyr treatment, there should be no prejudice against writing an article at that point.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:48, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as WP:TOOSOON. Writers are not automatically entitled to Wikipedia articles just because they and their writing exist — a writer gets a Wikipedia article when she can be reliably sourced over WP:AUTHOR for one or more specific accomplishments. Improved coverage of her may very well come to exist once the book is actually released, but as of right now the sourcing here is entirely too dependent on primary sources, and media content where she was the bylined author rather than the subject of the piece. No prejudice against recreation next year if the coverage kicks in once her novel's out — but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a free advertising platform, and nothing written or sourced here already gets her an encyclopedia article today. Bearcat (talk) 20:37, 1 August 2016 (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.