Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lauren James (author)


 * 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. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 23:56, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Lauren James (author)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Promotional work likely created as part of a paid editing sock farm/ring that used multiple accounts to get around the AfC process. Data is too stale to use and it is far enough back that I'm not personally going to G5 it. Taking it here for discussion. Since this is a promotional and likely UPE piece created in violation of the TOU, the question of notability doesn't matter. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:36, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 20:15, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 20:15, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! Baby miss  fortune 01:18, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! Baby miss  fortune 01:19, 15 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment, hi, it would be nice for less experienced wikieditors if you could explain or at least wikilink all the acronyms you have used in this afd ie. AFC, G5, UPE, TOU, thanks. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:53, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment, James' novel The Next Together meets WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG with multiple independent reviews, as cited in the article, The Last Beginning, however, is not so supported. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:48, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That doesn't matter. The ground for this deletion has nothing to do with notability, but with promotionalism and terms of use violations. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:00, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong delete Wikipedia is not a platform for self promotion, and we need to be vigilant in removing such from the project.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:39, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete -- likely created as part of a paid-editing sock farm with a promotional intent; such content is explicitely exclused per WP:NOTSPAM. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:28, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment, having a look at Reasons for deletion i do not see "promotionalism" listed there, that sort of thing can just be edited out, as for terms of use ie. "Paid contributions without disclosure"(?), thats pretty heavy stuff, i'll just go with Delete as subject does not meet WP:NAUTHOR, 1 notable work does not necessarily mean (with a few exceptions:)) that the creator of that work is themselves notable. ps. i note that the editor who approved the article is a block indefinite, does that mean all the articles they approved thru AFC should be carefully looked at (any admins with time on their hands?:))? Coolabahapple (talk) 08:43, 18 December 2017 (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.