Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Michael Cummings


 * 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. Unanimity that the subject fails WP:AUTHOR Just Chilling (talk) 18:39, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

John Michael Cummings

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Following this request on my talkpage: urgent help needed with my Wiki page - query, I took a look at the article, and noted that it did not contain reliable sources to meet either WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Only one source writes directly about the subject of the article, and that is an interview by the publisher of his works (Anaphora), and the [a] publisher [which] has no reputation, and conforms to descriptions of a vanity press in that the publisher expects the author to do the marketing and sales. The majority of the significant creators of the article are single purpose red-link accounts which are either the subject himself, or, as claimed by the subject, are people known to him. This appears to be a promotional article, which is against policy. SilkTork (talk) 16:06, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. After reviewing the article and the sources, they're either non-reliable, non-independent, or brief, passing mentions rather than the substantial coverage that would demonstrate notability. After checking, I cannot find anything more substantial. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:41, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete I have spent some time researching the sources listed at User talk:LankyKeller. The only one that is independent and reliable is the Kirkus review of one of his books, which is short and doesn't actually provide notability for the author. WP:NAUTHOR is clearly not met, and as the coverage of him is very local (notices in local papers about his giving talks, probably based on PRs from his publisher) I can't see that WP:GNG is met either. When I tried to find independent sources I couldn't help noticing that the author has been very active in promoting himself and asking for reviewers to review his books - there are at least 80-90 such requests that pop up in a Google search for his name and books. Andd in every such request, he mentions the Wikipedia article about him as a source of info - seemingly he uses WP in lieu of a personal website. I appreciate that many authors have to work hard to get the word out about their books, but Wikipedia can't be part of that. --bonadea contributions talk 17:22, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment The coverage of his work is not only local. There's lengthy review of Ugly to Start With in the Philadelphia Inquirer here, and a review of  The Night I Freed John Brown in the Boston Globe here (mostly behind a paywall, but it appears to a 900 word article reviewing 3 books for young people, of which one is by Cummings). Also note that his books are not vanity press published—two are by university presses, and one by a division of Penguin. Per WorldCat, his books are held in over 900 libraries which is quite substantial, especially for the genre. Voceditenore (talk) 18:06, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Is there a consensus from past discussions, about how many independent newspaper reviews of an author's work is sufficient for notability under WP:AUTHOR item 3?--Srleffler (talk) 20:08, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , that criterion includes the requirement In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. That wouldn't just mean a few newspaper reviews (or even a lot of newspaper reviews), it would mean, for example, a book being adapted into a major movie, or books or documentaries being written or made about the work. There's clearly nothing like that here. Newspaper reviews might contribute somewhat toward notability of a book, but not at all toward notability of the author. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:34, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with your conclusion, but for a different reason. I think you missed the "or" in the requirement you quoted. A work that has been the subject of multiple independent reviews does satisfy that requirement, but this is "in addition" to the requirement that the body of work be "significant or well-known". I don't think that is the case here.--Srleffler (talk) 21:54, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * In addition to what Seraphimblade points out, the massive campaign from the author to get people to review his books means that many of the existing reviews are not in fact independent. The Philadelphia Inquirer review, for instance, is written by a reviewer who does freelance reviews for the newspaper, and it may or may (very probably) not be independent. The Boston Globe review behind a paywall is available here (it's one of the links LankyKeller provided on his talk page). It is a very short review indeed, not much more than a blurb. Nothing like significant coverage for the books, much less for the author. --bonadea contributions talk 21:11, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * bonadea, the Philadelphia Inquirer review is by the paper's former books editor (now retired), not some random freelancer. The Boston Globe review is 265 words long. I find it odd to characterise that as "not much more than a blurb." I am not opining one way or another in this discussion, as it's a very marginal case. However, my impression is that the summary dismissal of reviews and articles about him or his books is partially, if not largely, influenced by negative perceptions of the article's subject, his canvassing, and conflict of interest. Srleffler is absolutely correct. That should not be a factor in this discussion. The subject of the article either meets the requirements of WP:AUTHOR or he does not. The sources should be evaluated as they would be for any other subject, not based on or influenced by the subject's behaviour on Wikipedia. Voceditenore (talk) 08:25, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Please don't speculate about why other editors hold the opinions they do - it is very easy to get it wrong, and in this instance, you have. I stand by my opinion, which is based on my own reviews of the many sources provided, and nothing else. As you will notice I never claimed that the Inquirer reviewer is "some ranom freelancer", but I pointed out that as he offers to review books through his website he is exactly the kind of person who may very probably have been targetted by the author. This discussion is surely intended to work out whether the person is notable or not, which means evaluating whether the sources are a) reliable, b) independent, and c) offer significant coverage. [edited to add: I will not deny that I am frustrated with the person - I don't have the patience of an angel, and having my explanations of how Wikipedia works repeatedly ignored, by somebody who refuses to understand that we are volunteers and that the article about him is not "his", is irritating. But the involvement with the author has been helpful in that it has become very clear that there is a lack of sourcing, given that he has made a honest effort to provide us with reliable sources - if the sourcing about him had existed, he would certainly have provided us with it, even without the WP:BEFORE searches that all of us obviously did before !voting in this AfD.] --bonadea contributions talk 15:09, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * You are correct Voceditenore, Anaphora is not his publisher. That was my mistake. I have stricken those comments. The publishers of his works are reliable. SilkTork (talk) 22:14, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:09, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:09, 8 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. Fails WP:AUTHOR, and WP:NOTPROMO. The subject of the article through his canvassing of various numerous users and admins with requests that they improve the article, has clearly demonstrated that his intention is to use the Wikipedia to further his career as a writer. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:05, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The subject of the article's attempts to canvass for aid in improving the article should not be a factor in this discussion. The subject of the article either meets the requirements of WP:AUTHOR or he does not. Nothing else is relevant. If the article is too promotional or not supported by sufficient references, that can be fixed. Editing behaviors and conflicts of interest can be addressed. None of that is relevant to the question of whether Wikipedia should have an article on this subject.--Srleffler (talk) 19:58, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * A lack of sufficient references can only be fixed if significant coverage actually exists, though. --bonadea contributions talk 21:11, 8 June 2019 (UTC)


 * FTR, see also Sockpuppet investigations/1608Washington. The subject of the article has slipped up and admitted (indirectly) to sockpuppetry; it is true that this doesn't affect the notability of the person, but it is not irrelevant as it shows that there have been attempts to bolster the perceived notability. --bonadea contributions talk 21:11, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Kirkus reviewed both The Night I Freed John Brown and Don't Forget Me, Bro but I don't see any other reviews from the usual journals (not even Publisher's Weekly which is a bit surprising giving that John Brown was published by a Penguin imprint). The socking,if true, is the only thing I see of concern of actions by the article's subject - the stuff on Silk's talk page seems to be normal complaining an article's subject and certainly not worthy on its own merits for deletion. However, there doesn't seem to be notability under NAUTHOR to support his article in general. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:28, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete The article clearly doesn't meet WP:GNG. I couldn't find independent reliable sources on the Internet. Masum Reza 📞 00:03, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - per nomination . I am also intrigued by this new user who claims to be the Director of the Stephen F Austin University Press. I regard the claim as doubtful and the talk page comment as unhelpful  Velella  Velella Talk 15:11, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Have studied the article and done some searching. Fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 10:46, 14 June 2019 (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.