Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Farris


 * 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 (WP:SNOW). King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 09:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Jim Farris

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Fails WP:BIO. I have looked for reliable, third-party sources that would establish notability and found none. Previous WP:PROD nomination was removed by the main author, who also appears to be the subject. Yilloslime (t) 06:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Author is self-published, as far as I can tell (one of his books is listed on Amazon, published by Diskus Publishing--"Disk Us," i.e., send us the disk), and no hits are generated on Google or Google News. Google Scholar has one hit for this Jim Farris, but the topic is e-books and focuses on Stephen King. No notability that I can find. Drmies (talk) 06:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Self-published (he is the sole author published by White Gryphon Publishing) & no independent sources to establish notability. Looie496 (talk) 22:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: Fails WP:BIO. Schuym1 (talk) 00:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Just a correction: I am NOT 'self-published.'  White Gryphon is NEW, that's why they only have me at the moment.  And as I have explained before, if you want to delete the article, just get it speedy-deleted, it's really not an issue to me.  I've been changing publishers and doing ghost-writing for the last few months.  Ghost writing is pretty lucrative, but you don't get publishing credits for it, so I'm falling off the "google radar", as it were.  Six months from now, things could be different, and someone might start the article again.  Either way, it's not an issue to me - if you want it gone, go ahead and speedy it.  Xaa (talk) 20:36, 13 January 2009 (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.