Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jobie Hughes


 * 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. There is a consensus that the subject doesn't pass WP:AUTHOR, and looking at all the opinions expressed it seems that the sources aren't quite enough to satisfy WP:BASIC at this time. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 06:02, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Jobie Hughes

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG1 Darkness Shines (talk) 16:07, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Neutral/Weak keep. I'm kind of undecided on this. On one hand, Hughes did help ghostwrite the first two books of the Lorien Legacy series, which is a big series. On the other hand, that's really all he's known for. He's been mentioned, but more in passing when it comes to articles concerning James Frey. After he stopped ghostwriting the LL series, he pretty much dropped off the radar. His other book has received trade reviews, which aren't a lot in the grand scheme of things but so far trade reviews haven't officially been discounted as "trivial" when it comes to reliable sourcing. He is, however, mentioned in a small paper and heavily mentioned in the New York Magazine piece. I can see keeping the article, but then I can also see redirecting it to the Lorien Legacy series page as Qworty had done earlier. His notability pretty much all stems from that series, but there haven't really been much out there that has specifically focused on him. I will give one warning if the page is kept: it'll have to be pretty vigilantly watched. There had been some edit warring in the past where a couple of socks were reverting the page to a version that was overly positive about Hughes. There was a sockpuppet check, which eventually got linked to a username of User:Jobieh‎. It might not be Mr. Hughes himself, but then it might be. I'm just warning admins that there was edit warring and one of the socks made some fairly nasty comments on my user page that were completely deleted from the edit history, so some protecting of the page might be necessary if it's kept.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   19:30, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. The guy is a ghostwriter who got fired by James Frey, and whose name never even appeared on any of the books packaged by Frey.  Is this what passes now for WP:AUTHOR and WP:BK? Surely not.  Yes, he did manage to publish one book under his own name, but it immediately tanked.  Is that what passes now for WP:AUTHOR or WP:BK?  Again, the answer is no.  Everyone should read the guidelines carefully.  Otherwise, every non-notable ghostwriter who's gone on to publish non-notable work under his own name will be demanding an article.  Also, editors who might try to argue that he is indeed notable for the one book he wrote under his own name should note that the article for that book has already been deleted from Wikipedia.  You can read the deletion discussion here .  This appears to be the case of a person who thought that we would forget about all of this, wrongly imagining that he could sneak back here the following year and recreate some of the same non-notable material.  But there are editors who've kept this stuff on their watchlists for a long, long time, and for good reason. Qworty (talk) 20:27, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete I can only find one source written about Hughes; all other mentions are trivial, that he co-authored I Am Number Four with James Frey. Fails WP:BASIC, which requires a person to have "been the subject of multiple published secondary sources". I don't see sufficient sources about the author at this time.  dissolve  talk  21:11, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. I think he does abrely satisfy WP:GNG. Article should could be improved, but I don't have time to do it. 173.13.150.22 (talk) 01:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 05:29, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash;  Yash [talk] 12:17, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran  ( t  •  c ) 02:38, 26 January 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.