Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/M. William Phelps


 * 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 no consensus. This discussion has been going on for almost a month now and there's no evidence that it's moving closer to any sort of consensus forming. A straight vote count provides a slight edge to the "Keep" side, but not a decisive one or one that indicates consensus has been reached to take any particular course of action. In particular, on the subjective question of whether the coverage that exists for this person is sufficiently substantial, there appears to be no clear agreement between editors, despite extensive discussion. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:35, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

M. William Phelps

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

True-crime author with no apparent secondary coverage other than reviews panning his TV appearances. If I'm wrong, please someone point to such coverage. EEng (talk) 09:41, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 29 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep Meets WP:GNG. Subject is a noteworthy published author and is widely written about. Passes WP:AUTHOR. The reviews are not panning the author's "TV appearances." Some are about a TV crime series he developed and hosted on the Investigation Network. I have added third-party sources to it and will continue improving upon the article. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 04:32, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but can you point to the sources qualifying for GNG or AUTHOR? The only source I can find giving anything more than passing mentions is, and that's hardly GNG's "significant coverage". Beyond that he won the "Genre" category at the 2008 New England Book Festival (whatever that is) and that doesn't give us any of AUTHOR's criteria:
 * The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.
 * The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
 * The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
 * The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.
 * EEng (talk) 09:32, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:04, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Your statement that the subject is an author "with no apparent secondary coverage other than reviews panning his TV appearances" appears to be inaccurate. There has been extensive secondary coverage of a TV documentary series he developed and hosted, including USA Today here, the Denver Post here, KTFF TV 2, the Associated Press and the Peninsula Daily News. He was featured in Writers Digest here. As for awards, one of his books was a New York Times bestseller, and he won a Society of Professional Journalists award. The awards and media coverage meet WP:GNG. Those are now cited in the article. As for negative reviews, or "panning," the documentary series was criticized by the New York Daily News here. I am unaware of a requirement that to pass WP:GNG the coverage of the subject needs to be positive. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 06:24, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Coverage doesn't have to be positive, but it does have to be coverage.
 * The Society of Professional Journalist's Award -- so impressive those words sound! -- turns out to be second place in the "Investigative reporting - magazine" category from the Connecticut chapter of this society -- and the list of awards given by the Connecticut chapter that year covers thirteen pages -- about 250 awards in all! Multiplying by 50 states in the US we might estimate there to be some 12000 such awards each year -- hardly notability material.
 * What you call being "featured in Writer's Digest" is a phony set-piece interview on a promotional website, as seen in the url you link to http://www.writersdigest.com/writing-articles/by-writing-goal/get-published-sell-my-work/m-william-phelps-expanded-interview ("get-published-sell-my-work").
 * Everything else is press-release WP:ROUTINE stuff about his TV shows (not him), most of which mention him only in passing with the usual puffy quotes -- one mentions him just once! EEng (talk) 12:11, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Your saying "everything else" is press-release driven or a puff piece does not make it so. You failed to recognize the New York Time bestseller, the New England book award, that one of his books has been optioned for a film, or to recognize that the Associated Press wrote an article about him and the documentary series, which was picked up by other news outlets. The Associated Press, as well as book reviews done by Kirkus Reviews and Publishers Weekly, are not publications looked upon as driven by press releases. A search on Worldcat distribution, here, shows that his title Nathan Hale alone is carried by 768 libraries for four editions of that book, which is substantial. Based on the coverage, the subject is a notable author and TV producer, as shown by the cited sources. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 14:03, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It's well established that being a bestseller has (some) notability value for the book itself, but none for its author (though it's something to mention in the author's article, obviously -- if he has an article, which depends on his own notability). Same for library holdings
 * I mentioned the "New England Book Festival" award already -- it's a minor local award.
 * The reviews are about Phelps' books, not him. Here, for example, is every mention of him in the Kirkus review:
 * ''Veteran true-crime author Phelps chronicles the story of the killing … Two Houston homicide detectives provide the focal point for Phelps .... The author is respectful of the police ... Phelps reports in unimaginative, sometimes overwhelming detail.
 * This is "substantial coverage" of Phelps?
 * There's nothing here about the subject. EEng (talk) 16:19, 6 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment -I found and added a Good Morning America appearance (here) where the subject is interviewed throughout the piece. Along with the other national coverage as cited in my earlier comments, the feature articles about him in Writers Digest, his writing awards, his TV series and his New York Times bestseller, plus his authoring 23 books, the subject sufficiently meets notability. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 18:43, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Everything you mention I've dealt with above, with the exception of Good Morning America -- and as for that, here's the entirety of its "coverage" of Phelps:
 * The horrific tale is now the subject of M. William Phelps' new true crime book, "Murder in the Heartland." He conducted interviews with Montgomery's ex-husband, children and mother, law enforcement officials, friends, relatives, and neighbors. ... Phelps said that Montgomery had worked a different shift than her husband ... "It was easier for her to manipulate him," Phelps said. ... Phelps said that Montgomery had researched how to do a Caesarean section on the Internet ... Phelps said that the prosecution might have a strong chance of proving premeditation... While in prison, Montgomery, Phelps said, has found God.  She's found Jesus Christ," he said.
 * As before, none of this is about Phelps. EEng (talk) 19:10, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand that that is your mantra, but that is not the case. Good Morning America is about what he did to get to the story, and the feature stories are about how and why he became a writer. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 20:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, the entirety of mentions, or quotations, of Phelps in Good Morning America are given in the block quote just above, and says nothing about "what he did to get the story". The "feature article" is, as already mentioned, found on a vanity-publisher's website (""get-published-sell-my-work") and is an interview; interviews are of zero notability value because they're not independent of the subject.
 * The almost complete lack of coverage of Phelps is reflected in the article, BTW, in the fact that, other than his name and where he lives, and that he has a wife and three children, it says absolutely nothing whatsoever about him -- it's essentially a list of publications and screen credits. At this point I think it best if we let other editors give their opinions. EEng (talk) 01:37, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Writer's Digest is not a "vanity-publisher's website." Look it up. It is a printed magazine that was established in 1920 as a how-to for freelance writers. It is sold on magazine racks nationally: "Writer's Digest is an American magazine aimed at beginning and established writers. It contains interviews, market listings, calls for manuscripts, and how-to articles. Writer's Digest is owned by F+W Media, which publishes the annual edition of Writer's Market, a guide containing a list of paying markets — magazines, publishing houses, and contests — as well as an index and tips for the beginning writers. The magazine is published eight times per year." Again, saying something is so does not make it so. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 01:55, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Christ, you're naive. But believe what you want. Anyway, interviews are still of zero notability value. Now be my guest and have the last word if you want, after which please can we just let other editors weigh in? EEng (talk) 04:02, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Response "Naive"? Now you are being rude, which is uncalled for. Yes, please, let this end. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 17:03, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:55, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I added a Reuters article and Q&A (here's the article), dated 2012, of a lengthy interview with the subject and his TV series co-host. Reuters is a reliable third-party source that further establishes notability. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 17:27, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * As already noted interviews have zero notability value, becuase they're not independent of the subject. In any event, this piece says nothing at all about Phelps himself, beyond "crime author M. William Phelps and criminal profiler John Kelly revisit unsolved serial-killer cases ... Phelps, a former consultant on "Dexter," has a personal stake: His own sister-in-law was murdered by a serial killer in 1996." That's it. This is just more evidence of the complete lack of available coverage of the subject. EEng (talk) 18:45, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Response He meets WP:Bio, according to the guidelines, if his works have been the subject of "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews," which they have, or if something he has created has been the subject of multiple articles or reviews, for which the TV series has. This is absolutely not a case of "complete lack of available coverage of the subject," as you continue to repeat regardless of the secondary sources presented along with new ones I have found since you started the AfD. By the way, you do not need to respond. I know what you are going to say. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 20:05, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll respond since it's not my goal to convince you, but others, and I don't want them misled your misstatements. There are, as AFAICS, two reviews cited in the article, each one paragraph long. That's not, as the guideline you partially quote calls for...
 * The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
 * "Articles" announcing that a series is coming don't count. EEng (talk) 20:31, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

And I reiterate so that "others are not misled by your misstatements" about coverage in USA Today, New York Daily News, Reuters, Writer's Digest magazine, etc. Phelps is regularly quoted about murder cases, which he is known for writing about in 23 books released by traditional publishing houses and talking about the cases on a national TV series. GNG is met, as demonstrated by multiple coverage in reliable sources, and the subject is notable. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 01:39, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * "And I reiterate so that 'others are not misled by your misstatements, writing a lot of books on murder cases and "talking about the cases on a national TV series" are not coverage of him. And he's not, as you say, "regularly quoted" about the cases, except in the context of the WP:ROUTINE puffery one finds around the release of books and announcements of TV series. Every source you've pointed to above as constituting "coverage" I've refuted, in most cases by quoting in full the handful of passing mentions of Phelps each contains. First you say he meets GNG, then when that doesn't work it's AUTHOR, then BIO, and now it's back to GNG. In reality it's none of those.
 * Now that we've disposed of the no-notability Reuters interview, can we go back to awaiting comments from other editors, as agreed? EEng (talk) 02:05, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, you describing the Reuters interview as "no-notability" does not make it so, just your opinion that appears to not be based on the guidelines. Let others chime in. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 03:05, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep IMDb listings are persuasive all by themselves. But there are also writieups abouthim in major dailys like the Denver Post and the Hartford Courant. Reviews in significant outlets. This AFD is a slam-dunk KEEP.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:07, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Here's the entirety of mentions of Phelps in the Denver Post's "writeup about him":
 * The Investigation Discovery show "Dark Minds," hosted by true crime author M. William Phelps, is called "Road Paved to Murder" and begins at 7 p.m. ... Phelps also interviews a Denver Post reporter, criminal profiler John Kelly and a serial killer serving multiple life sentences who goes by the moniker "Raven."
 * Yup, that's a slam-dunk for sure. The Courant piece is indeed longer but, again, one puffy interview is hardly significant coverage. What else is there? EEng (talk) 12:38, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * What policy are you applying, other than IDONTLIKEIT? My point is that there are so many reviews in RS, so many IMDb listings, and interviews in Writer's Digest, and write ups in major daily papers like the Hartford Courant already on the page that it is not necessary to go searching the way it ordinarily is for AFDs on authors.  I'm sorry that the editorial judgment of a great newspaper line the Hartford Courant fails to meet your personal standards, but I fail to see what that has to do with WP:GNG, or WP:AUTHOR (multiple independent periodical articles or reviews), policy standards that this writer sails past.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:24, 17 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete: in the interest of full disclosure EEng asked me to take a look at this, but bear in mind that I'm completely capable of making up my own mind on these matters. That out of the way, I have to agree that there's almost nothing here that's about the subject himself. This isn't a situation like we have with music, where the notability of albums is directly tied to that of the writer; completely non-notable people can produce notable books or TV material, it happens all the time. As an example see Autobiography of a Geisha; Masuda Sayo doesn't have her own biography because people don't comment on her (in her case she actively shunned such attention), they comment on her book. Same concept here. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 04:10, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Wrong. Authorship is an exact parallel to music composition.   Writing a notable book or the script of a notable movie is what makes a writer notable.  Even a single book (see: To Kill a Mockingbird) can make an author notable.   see WP:AUTOR "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work".   Masuda Sayo is unusual, nevertheless, she would sail past WP:AUTHOR (which is, as you probably already know, the same for all creative professionals (see: WP:CREATIVE)  But in more routine cases, writing a number of books and movies that get respectful reviews and/or substantive press attention satisfies  WP:AUTHOR.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:42, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It's completely possible for books to be notable even if the author is completely unknown, as a history guy by trade such things are quite routine. In any event, I don't believe WP:AUTHOR actually says a person is inherently notable if they've produced something notable; situations like these are exactly why it doesn't say that. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 21:27, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It's possible, it's also totally beside the point. This AFD is about a writer of multiple films, multiple books, participant in multiple modestly successful TV shows, and written up in multiple RS places over many years.  Some of the mentions are brief, but even these are often in articles about works of which he is an or the author.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:08, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * BOTNL, hate to ask, but why don't you take a few minutes to look at the various references in the article, to see just how superficial almost all of them are. With two or three exceptions they're not "reviews" but ROUTINE announcements, and even the reviews are paragraph-length. EEng (talk) 23:47, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree, which is the crux of the matter here. None of the cited sources really discuss the author, and there's certainly no way that this sort of trivial coverage translates to notability. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 02:51, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Interviews, profiles exist. Here are some: Hartford Courant:, , Writer's Digest: ,  Also this, from a publication that I am   not familiar with  .  fyi, User:The Blade of the Northern Lights. E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:16, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Those are both discussed above. They are both interviews, and interviews have zero notability value because they're not independent of the subject. EEng (talk) 11:24, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Both? Surely you mean all three. only 2 of which are mentioned above, although User:The Blade of the Northern Lights aserted that there were "none" on the page.  And you are wrong. "not independent of subject" WP:GNG  "excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent."   Interviews and profiles in a major daily like the Hartford Courant, or a trade magazine like Writer's Digest are "independent of the subject" in fact, they are what establishes notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:38, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * To reiterate, in the Phelps case, notability is established not only by multiple interviews in RS, but by widespread coverage of his many true crime books (some of which is on the page), by hosting a TV series that has been renewed for several years and covered in multiple RS articles, and by the fact that several of his books have been made into movies and, according to RS news reports, others optioned for movie rights. Breadth as well as depth of coverage established notability here.  User:Northamerica1000, it may be time to close this as keep despite or because of User:EEng dogged opposition, which began with a verifiably mistaken afd nom ("no apparent secondary coverage other than reviews panning his TV appearances. If I'm wrong, please someone point to such coverage") and has continued not only by recruiting to the page a fellow editor similarly wiling to misstate reality re: coverage of Phelps,("None of the cited sources really discuss the author,"), but with broad misstatements of both reality of coverage of Phelps and of  WP policy ("interviews (Hartford Courant, Writer's Digest) have zero notability value because they're not independent of the subject")E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:20, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I based the nomination, and my comments, on the sources in the article plus what I found on a quick Google search. I think you better watch it with the "recruiting to the page a fellow editor similarly willing to misstate reality" bullshit. How do you feel about that comment, ? EEng (talk) 12:56, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Nathan Hale  is in 771 libraries' "The devil's rooming house :" (on Amy Archer-Gilligan) is in 711' Murder in the heartland'' on Bobbie Jo Stinnett in 688; others in 544, 313, etc.  These figures are characteristic of a notable author. DGG ( talk ) 07:05, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * If you are new to this page I advise you to skip the discussion, just go to the article, and take a look at the page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:44, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * If you are new to this page I advise you to skip the discussion, just go to the article, open all the sources, and see how many you can find that are actually about the subject of the article, and independent of him. EEng (talk) 01:54, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep tho library holdings are not a formal criterion ,the';re indicative, because libraries buy on the basis of public interest plus reviews ''
 * 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.