Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael McCollum


 * 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. The arguments for deletion are much stronger and more policy-grounded than the reasons for retention given. –MuZemike 23:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Michael McCollum

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Although I own the Antares trilogy, he's not really notable nor are any of his works. I could only find a short paragraph in a reliable source about the author, the rest is self-published or unreliable. Subject does not meet WP:GNG.

I am also nominating his novel which also suffers from a lack of notability.
 * Odie5533 (talk) 20:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete No significant coverage. Too bad, the Sun Devils helped UCLA get into the Rose Bowl back in the 80s.Lionel (talk) 01:33, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I think that Michael's page should be kept, not only because I think his Gibraltar series is great Sci Fi and worth note, but also because I think his business model is interesting. He sells easily copyable PDFs directly to consumers who can choose, rightly or wrongly, to distribute the digital content immediately, and widely. I think his trail-blazing methods of selling his wares is of potentially more note than his literature, and this alone should justify his existence on Wikipedia.--Coolth (talk) 05:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting business model (though not unique to him, I've seen plenty who have similar no-DRM policies). Do you have any reliable sources discussing his business model? If there are it could help save this article, but as it stands he doesn't seem notable. --Odie5533 (talk) 05:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * weak keep there appears to be an interview in a print magazine, was on a fairly obscure best-seller list and  might be a RS review.  Hobit (talk) 15:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I think that Michael's page should be kept, his books are my favorite science fictions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Montymo (talk • contribs) 19:39, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * — Montymo (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Haakon (talk) 20:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Does not meet notability guidelines on several counts. Amazon does not directly sell his books - McCollum sells them on there through his own store, and the publisher is "Scifi Arizona" which is his website, indicating that his works are self-published.  As for McCollum's  business model, his FAQ clearly states that there are copyright notices on the works he sells, and he also has short stories that are free. They are two distinct categories, and his copyright is asserted.  Therefore, unauthorized copying still renders one liable for copyright violation, and has nothing to do with the volition of the reader.  This is not at all a unique business model; he just chooses not to use proprietary software as a method to enforce his copyright claims, though he encourages reporting of unauthorized copies, and has indeed copyrighted the works. MSJapan (talk) 04:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. No reliable secondary sources to establish notability per WP:AUTHOR. Uncle Dick (talk) 16:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - He's selling books online for as long as Amazon.com exists. That should mean something, right? And he has claimed in 1996 that $1M worth of his books were sold in bookstores before. That he is his own publisher should by no means be held against him, right? It's hard to find good Sci-Fi in bookstores, so I'm sure am happy to have found his site. Oh and you can read his books on Kindle, does that make them more real? It's 2010 guys, it doesn't have to be on paper to be notable, right? Inkredibl (talk) 17:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * — Inkredibl (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --Coolth (talk) 19:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Unless you have a reliable source which says that he's significant because he's been selling books online for as long as Amazon has existed, then it doesn't really mean much. The authors claims are not WP:reliable secondary sources. He doesn't have to be on paper to be notable, he does, however, have to have some secondary coverage. --Odie5533 (talk) 22:20, 26 August 2010 (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.