Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joshua Lisec


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:54, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Joshua Lisec

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

This is a marginal article. Notability depends on 2 articles in the Dayton Daily News, a 126-year old reliable publication. However as the brand new editor who proposed this article for deletion (PROD) noted, they're pretty fluffy articles. I'm bringing this article to AfD based on his request at the Teahouse. How do other editors view notability? A. B. (talk • contribs • global count)  20:30, 17 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. A. B. (talk • contribs •  global count)  20:33, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. A. B. (talk • contribs •  global count)  20:33, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

To address a point above by the article's author, if the article's subject is not known for his work due to the nature of ghostwriting ("This is an issue for ghostwriters, whose work is often uncredited"), then, not being known, the subject would fail to meet a notability standard. Wikipedia is not meant to "right the wrong" of ghostwriters not being known for their work, and it is not meant to establish notability for someone. FrodeAnthelm (talk) 14:16, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @FrodeAnthelm, original PROD nominator -- A. B. (talk • contribs •  global count)  20:43, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Weak delete as not meeting WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR. While it could be argued that he has "played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work" I cannot find any evidence that his work has been the primary subject of significant coverage. LizardJr8 (talk) 06:56, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * This is an issue for ghostwriters, whose work is often uncredited. The most notable public book I could find for him was the one with Scott Adams (the Dilbert guy), which received a lot of attention when it was canceled due to his controversial comments and then published independently. The reference to that controversy was removed during earlier edits. I had some other references that were also removed that might help. Doorknobbish (talk) 14:06, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * "As it happens, I worked with an author on a not-quite-banned book recently. Dilbert creator and bestselling author Scott Adams had his long-running comic strip ended by multiple newspapers and his forthcoming book contract canceled over some hyperbolic remarks on race that were intended to stir up discussion. Scott Adams' books were twice banned, but Amazon reversed the decision." — Newsweek Lisec is listed as the editor of that book. Doorknobbish (talk) 14:22, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * And here's his TedX talk. Doorknobbish (talk) 14:36, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * And two TV interviews: ABC4 and Dayton 24/7 Now. Doorknobbish (talk) 14:41, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete as it does not meet WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG, and there is a possible WP:COI issue. The creator and primary contributor, user Doorknobbish, a single-purpose account (except for edits on other subjects made in 2010) has been approached by multiple users on his or her talk page about behavior that gives the appearance of COI, and did answer "I'm not being paid" but did not respond to the question raised 7 November 2023 by user David notMD, "do you have a personal connection to the subject of the article[?]".
 * Keep: weak keep, has just enough coverage about being a ghostwriter. Oaktree b (talk) 21:22, 19 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I'm a longtime Wikipedia lurker but I had never tried to create a page before because it seemed like everything has been done. I follow Joshua Lisec on Twitter, where he has a big following, and I thought he deserved a page. I’m not being paid and I don’t have a relationship with him. On the other point, I'm not saying it should "right a wrong," I'm just pointing out that some of the arguments for him not being notable are due to the fact that you can't prove some things to Wikipedia standards. I put a lot of facts in the first draft about things that were notable about him that got taken out by other editors. Doorknobbish (talk) 19:34, 21 February 2024 (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.