Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Maher (writer)


 * 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. ✗ plicit  03:42, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Patrick Maher (writer)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Appears to fail WP:AUTHOR, and there is a polite request for the article to be deleted by the subject here coming via an intermediary with a declared COI. Qt.petrovich (talk) 09:13, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Qt.petrovich (talk) 09:13, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment it would be helpful if were able to tell us which parts of the article are false/misguided, if they know? Elemimele (talk) 12:44, 4 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. Based on the sources from the article, Pleng's Song has received coverage in The Himalayan Times, The Jakarta Globe, and The Times of India, giving it coverage in at least 3 independent sources, making it a notable work under WP:NBOOK, and making Patrick Maher a notable author under WP:NAUTHOR 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 primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. If there are issues with the content of the article, those should be resolved separately, but the subject appears notable. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 15:20, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 *  Weak delete I'm going to carefully go through the article and try to remove anything that cannot be verified by the sources provided, starting with the claims made by . The verification of the highlighted issues (the colleges attended, the comments about his family, the claim that his first book is a bestseller in Japan) comes from an interview with Cybersansar, which despite being an interview with the subject, I cannot call a reliable source, as it appears to be a gossip blog with little to no journalistic oversight. I'm not sure about the "#1 in Amazon Japan" claim as the other source to claim this appears to be a legitimate newspaper. As for the book reviews being paid, I have no way of verifying that besides the word of Simplewikipedian. That said, the reviews only exist in archive form (allegedly at the request of the author) so that does give them less weight in my view. Taken as a whole, I'm having doubts that the coverage of the books is enough to meet WP:NBOOK, especially with the assertion that they were undisclosed paid reviews that were taken down later, which therefore casts doubt on the notability of the author, so I'm changing my !vote for now. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 16:11, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Based on Dreamy Jazz's comment below corroborating Simplewikipedian's comment, the subject clearly fails notability guidelines and the article should be d*leted. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:17, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Reply to commentsThis article has many false information about the person. The references to the universities attended are false. The comment about his mother is slanderous. The claim that the father was a physician is incorrect. The birthdate is incorrect. The claim that his first book was a best seller in Japan has no valid sources and is also false And there is also no evidence that he settled in Khlomngsamwa District, this also a false information The references on the book Pleng's Song that got archived were mostly paid, and they have been taken down by the publisher on request from the Subject himself. I would like to grab your attention to my comment. Simplewikipedian (talk) 03:59, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * That's most helpful. If consensus ends up that Maher is notable enough to require an article, then the dodgy information can nevertheless be removed. The reference to a Japanese No. 1 best seller must be removed unless someone finds a reference pretty quick-like; it's not supported by the current one. There is no earthly reason to refer to a third, as-yet unpublished book; the author's birth-date is irrelevant and unsupported by any reference; his personal background including the information about his parents is sourced from an interview with him, which is not a reliable source, and could therefore be removed. If the information is slanderous, however, his dispute should be with the magazine that published the interview, as it claims he said very much what is repeated in the WP article. To be honest, I don't care much whether what remains remains, or is deleted; it will basically be an article that says he published two books that got decent reviews, and that's marginally-notable, harmless information that's already in the public sphere. Elemimele (talk) 05:58, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree the two self-published books are marginally notable information but I suggest we move forward with deletion. Still the information is not very remarkable and lacks sources. The fact that so many sources have been removed by new organizations supports the argument/request for deletion in my opinion. Thank youSimplewikipedian (talk) 07:48, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * To be honest, the more I look at this, the weirder it looks. (1) Let's be clear, authors don't get to choose whether WP has an article or not; if they're notable, someone can write an article; it's only in marginal cases where someone's teetering on the brink of notability that their personal request can tip the balance; but (2) I hadn't noticed that both books are self-published. It surprised me, because I'd done a search for reviews, and Pleng's song in particular seemed to have reviews in sources I would normally regard as quite weighty. In general, self-published books rarely get that sort of coverage (unless the author is famous, ludicrously attractive and it's a quiet day in daytime TV...). (3) the problem of mis-information, if indeed the information is wrong, is not going to go away, because most of the WP information is still on other sites about Maher and the books; remember, we have to be cautious about whether someone claiming to act on behalf of Maher is indeed doing so; but (4) even with solid reviews in a good source, an author with only two published books, neither currently available(?), and little demonstration of lasting impact, is a bit edgy for notability. So far as I'm concerned, this could go either way. Elemimele (talk) 15:50, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I would like to add more, "The fact that neither the books are still available is a good point that I overlooked. It not only shows a lack of an enduring impact and notability of the two self-published books, but also provides further evidence that the sources were most likely temporary promotional pieces that had been paid for a long time ago (Now all eleven references that are available are being archived from the original). News sources do not take down authentic coverage. "Simplewikipedian (talk) 14:22, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Simplewikipedian has been blocked for socking and UPE. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:48, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Given that the editor pushing deletion has been blocked indefinitely, relisting this.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 22:30, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Let's take another crack at a consensus before considering WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE as the sole policy at play.
 * VRT agent comment: I have been in communication through VRT with the subject of this article (as this person does not have a official website/email there is no way for me to verify the identity of the person emailing. However, I am reasonably confident the person emailing is the subject of this article) .He asked me to summarize what he sent via email in this deletion discussion. He says similar points to Simplewikipedian above, who is blocked for concerns about using a previous blocked account (this account is a paid editor and not the subject of this article). This includes the references being paid for pieces which were not truthful and were written to promote, and therefore are not reliable or independent. He also claims that the point about one of his books being a bestseller is also false.Furthermore, in the email thread he asks for deletion of the article about him. As such, I suggest that in the event of no rough consensus the closer uses WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE to close the discussion as delete. Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 12:00, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 02:34, 19 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:45, 19 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Weak delete This is a bit borderline. He has one or two interview articles, but mostly the articles are about his book Pleng's Song, which has recieved some coverage. Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:05, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and Dreamy Jazz. This person is of questionable notability (per WP:N and WP:V, and the image used in the article is also up for deletion as a copyright violation (see here). I see no reason to prolong this. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 23:17, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment, i know the books are self published, and one of them appears to have a number of reviews, but when according to WorldCat there are no libraries holding any copies of them (the searches i entered are here drilldown here, and here drilldown here) this is a delete from me as not meeting WP:NAUTHOR ie. work(s) are not significant/well known and reviewed. Coolabahapple (talk)


 * 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.