Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nick Selby


 * 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. Ignoring the obvious WP:SPA / canvassed comments, clear consensus to delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:49, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Nick Selby

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not meet WP:NAUTHOR as the author of a single book which does not appear to have garnered substantial attention other than the author being used as a useful rentaquote source on the inevitable regularly-covered subject of police shootings. Selby himself similarly is quoted in numerous articles, but these are not about him, hence do not establish notability. The current article relies almost entirely on articles by Selby, not about him, and the remainder consist of two conference speaker listings, and a link to a self-published book on Amazon of which Selby is a co-author. In short, fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO etc. Hugsyrup (talk) 17:51, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:43, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:43, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:43, 10 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete he's a pretty prolific oped writer but this doesn't establish notability under our guidelines. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:17, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTPROMO. That said, although the article is ill-written, some of the claims looked plausible, and I tried to source it.  I found only one review of the book, an interview/review in the lifestyle pages of the local paper in St. Augustine, where he has a part-time home.  As Nom says, there are some opeds in major newspapers, and he gets quoted as a security/policing expert, but I did not find WP:SIGCOV and he does not pass WP:AUTHOR.  If you can source it, please feel free to ping me to reconsider.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:45, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * don't delete I've read this thread, and know Nick Selby, and I am surprised that the book "In Context" is being challenged. As a criminal justice professor, I was impressed enough with the book that I gave a quote supporting its methodology, and co-authored an article with Selby on the subject in the Washington Post, and worked with him on a podcast about policing. As to, "paltry," nine citations of a mainstream book by serious academics in peer-reviewed literature is nothing to sneeze at, and the underlying data is available freely ). In my opinion, the book is a substantive work of significant analysis. Peter Moskos  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fotaq (talk • contribs) 23:42, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Don't Delete discussion of authorship neglects other books published by major publishers including syngress and weldon owen — Obleek (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at UTC timestamp (UTC).
 * Don't Delete I am the person described by the page. I have read the thread and would point to a range of books published by Syngress, Weldon Owen, and even Lonely Planet . I won't argue with opinions I disagree with above (like, "rentaquote"), but hope editors consider the sources listed on the page.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nselby451 (talk • contribs) 09:48, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * don't delete As a publisher, Calibre Press has distributed In Context since it came out. Furthermore, it's content has been the subject of hundreds of conversations in our live seminar training across the U.S. Definitely a valuable and valued author and contribution. Crawford Coates, publisher. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CalibreP (talk • contribs) 11:46, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

— Arasita (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * In Context was self-published, and is distributed by Calibre Press[1], a legitimate publisher and distributor. The book was taken seriously by academics in the field; In Context has been cited in at least nine peer-reviewed academic journal articles and Google Scholar shows 11 academic citations[2]. The book was reviewed in PoliceOne[3], which has more than two million monthly visitors and more than 650,000 registered members[4]. Selby was the subject of a feature-length interview by David J. Krajacik for The Crime Report[5], published by the Center on Media, Crime and Justice at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York. The links to conferences spoke to Selby's expertise in information security, as evidenced by his speaking at, for example, the RSA Conference 2019, the largest cyber security conference in the world.


 * 9 is a paltry number of citations for a scholarly book. And overall very little WP:RS coverage.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:06, 11 July 2019 (UTC)


 * The issue is not whether you consider the number paltry. It was stated the book was invalid because it was self-published. Now it is stated that it is an "academic book" but that it's not cited enough. The question is whether the book was legitimate; its inclusion in more than one serious academic study says the book is legitimate. Also, it is not an academic book, it is a mainstream book that is cited in academic literature. --Arasita (talk) 12:16, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, the question is not whether the book is 'valid' or 'legitimate' since those are not standards that exist in any of Wikipedia's policies. The question is simply 'does the subject of this article meet one or more of our notability guidelines'? I argue that he does not meet the WP:GNGs as there is a lack of coverage in independent, reliable sources, and no one has yet unearthed anything to change my mind. An obvious alternative might be to ask if he meets WP:NAUTHOR in which case we would presumably want to establish whether Mr Selby is 'widely cited by peers'. This is why E.M.Gregory has questioned the number of citations. Hugsyrup (talk) 12:34, 12 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete as per nom and E.M.Gregory. What an amazing number of new/non-regular editors have navigated their way to this AfD page! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:40, 12 July 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.