Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Palmer (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. Rlendog (talk) 19:05, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Paul Palmer (author)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

The only references in this article are autobiographical pieces published in the Daily Mail. I'm unable to find even the briefest reviews of this author's novel, Balance of Power, although it was published by a reputable publisher (Coronet). Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. Pburka (talk) 11:34, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete I can't find any reliable sources; I concentrated on his novel, but found nothing usable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:01, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → B  music  ian  02:51, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  →TSU tp* 08:18, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. This is sourced by only one link, and that's to the Daily Mail, which is not exactly the most respected of papers. It's pretty much a glorified tabloid and not much better than the National Enquirer when you get down to it. A search brings up no other sources that could be considered reliable and showing notability. This could probably be speedied, to be honest. I'll tag it accordingly. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:00, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Sorry, it isn't a candidate for speedy deletion, as there is an assertion of notability through an award and through publication in a national newspaper. Personal feelings about the paper are irrelevant here. Remember - CSD#A7 is only valid if there is no assertion of notability (and the assertion doesn't need to be backed up with references).  This is why we have AFD - to check if the assertions are valid. Stephen! Coming... 12:03, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. Unfortunately this will have to waste more time on AfD, as the speedy was declined because he "won an award", despite there being no mention of what the award is and a search providing not information as to what that award is either. (Or that even if he'd been awarded one, that it would be notable.) I would like to note that the Amazon author page is almost word for word from this page, so there's a copyvio going on here as well. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 13:48, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. FWIW, I agree with Stephen!. I felt that the article's claims were sufficient to make WP:CSD or WP:PROD inappropriate, so I brought the article here instead. He is, after all, a published author. Pburka (talk) 00:01, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - No indication that he passes the guidelines of WP:AUTHOR. I was unable to find any third party sources referring to him.  Rorshacma (talk) 21:42, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete I could find absolutely no independent sourcing about this author or his book. Writing for a living does not by itself make a subject notable, per Wikipedia consensus. --MelanieN (talk) 15:42, 25 June 2012 (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.