Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Spiring


 * 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 subject plainly has some importance but there is a clear consensus that the notability standard has not been met. TerriersFan (talk) 22:24, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Paul Spiring

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Of the possible notability guidelines which could be used to justify this article, I do not believe that any can be satisfied. Firstly, WP:BASIC is not met whatsoever since none of the references are about the subject of the article. Secondly, WP:ACADEMIC cannot apply since he has only once been published in a journal and that was as the author of a letter. Finally, I do not think that WP:AUTHOR can be met, since there are no independent sources to verify that Spiring meets any of the four criteria. Myself and others have tried to improve the article, but I've come to the conclusion that it does not really belong here. SmartSE (talk) 21:18, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I share concerns with the assessment above, and also have concerns about promotional, perhaps autobiographical editing. However, I found at least two articles in reliable sources via the Google News archives that discuss the claims of the book he co-authored about Conan Doyle. On the other hand, there doesn't seem to be significant coverage on Spiring himself, the sources are on the verge of what I would call substantial, and WP:AUTHOR is not met as far as I can see. Therefore I suggest deletion. Hekerui (talk) 21:49, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  — &mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 22:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  — &mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 22:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  — &mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 22:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * delete fails WP:Author. I spend a lot of time cleaning up this article because it was basically promotional and misleading. Honestly, even now I'm not certain of some of the claims in that article. It's also not clear to me if Spiring was paid or paid for his two books to be published. Everything I can find suggests vanity publisher. --Cameron Scott (talk) 07:26, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Scott, I can clear that one-up for you. I was (and still am) paid for the books that I published. So far, my books have sold several thousand copies, and they can be found on the shelves of all major bookshops.Prspiring (talk) 05:28, 27 September 2011 (UTC)]]


 * Delete - Insufficient coverage about the subject to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:06, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - fails notability and has all the trappings of a vanity page (including a link from the subject's website back to the Wikipedia article). JohnInDC (talk) 15:28, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - I can't see this article as up to the requirements of WP:AUTHOR and WP:ACADEMIC. The long history of what smells of autobiographical editing and, it seems, the subject treating the Wikipedia page as an annexe of his own website, is not a good sign. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 03:59, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per arguments above. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:56, 25 September 2011 (UTC).
 * hmm, it seems to me that many of the above comments are personalised and not evidential. The subject was my teacher, and several of the above editors have removed perfectly reasonable citations to his notability, particularly from European media sources. I suggest that you first implement an anti-vandalism policy that compels future contributors to log in. It seems unlikely to me that the subject has contributed to this item directly, given that many of the edits are attributable to contributors in different countries simultaneously. Suspicion is not proof! If you don't want contributions from editors without an account, simple, don't permit them! In any event, at least read the citations before deleting them.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.247.114.170 (talk) 13:23, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The question here seems to be is the suubject of the article notable under WP:AUTHOR? Certainly, he appears to have made contributions to existing understanding of the origins of The Hound of the Baskervilles, the early works of PG Wodehouse and the illness of Joseph Merrick. I also researched the subject's website using the term 'Review:' and located several dozen peer reviewed items in various reputable newspapers and journals. I also located an item in the Sunday Times concerning 'Steve Emecz' of MX Publishing that refutes the notion that they are a vanity press outfit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.233.211.239 (talk) 21:03, 25 September 2011 (UTC) — 217.233.211.239 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment - Here's how MX Publishing presents itself on its website's "about" page:


 * Publishing a book in your area of expertise is an excellent form of business development and advertising for you and your business. Many of our authors see thousands of visitors to their websites generated by the activity around their books and some generate a lot of new business leads in this way.
 *  "the book has attracted prospects and secured me clients" 
 * It is probably the most cost effective marketing that you will ever undertake for your business. Professionally published books appear on tens of thousands of websites as well as the physical copies of the books being a marketing tool in themselves.
 * It sounds a lot like a vanity press to me. Or more charitably, a marketing tool.  JohnInDC (talk) 22:17, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes I came to the same page - certainly fits the model of vanity publishing, I notice the MX publishing name is spammed into a lot of articles, once this AFD is over, I'll attempt some clean-up. --Cameron Scott (talk) 07:12, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but a conventional publisher is quite different from a vanity press: [] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.233.211.239 (talk) 22:52, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * WP:BASIC is satisfied on the basis of "multiple references" to the subject in verifiable and substantive sources. (TedSherrell (talk) 15:19, 26 September 2011 (UTC))
 * But Spiring is not the subject of any of them so multiple references mean nothing. SmartSE (talk) 21:45, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree. He is referred too in most of the accompanying references to this article, and also in multiple others that you have removed recently. Furthermore, the remaining references clearly refer to either his work or ideas. Can you be precise in relation to your claims? TedSherrell (talk) 07:59, 27 September 2011 (UTC)]]
 * What I mean is that none of the articles are actually about Spiring in the way that this is about Mark Stephens for example. Simply "being referred to" in sources is not sufficient to meet BASIC. SmartSE (talk) 09:47, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That is partially true, and also partially incorrect. I note that the past attempts by others to add the type of references to which you refer, for example these, has frequently been reversed by yourself? TedSherrell (talk) 11:03, 27 September 2011 (UTC)]]
 * Though those are all behind a paywall I was able to learn a bit more about several. The first of them is an article about Spirling's research.  While quite brief, and with a focus more on the subjects of the research than on Spirling himself, it at least discusses Spirling.  The full article can be found here.  The last & 9th item appears to be a letter from Spirling in Germany noting that he's planning to co-author a new book, so we can set that aside as a reliable source.  Two of the items (nos. 2 and 6) are reviews by Colin Bradley of books of material compiled or republished by Spirling.  I could not find the full original reviews but User:TedSherrell has reprinted them on Amazon, here and here.  The rugby one is short, not much more than a squib.  The latter is more substantial but Spirling is mentioned only in passing.  No. 7 like no. 6 mentions Spirling only in passing.  I was able to locate a copy of no. 8 on Spirling's web site.  Here, Bradley reviews a book co-authored by Spirling.  It's a reasonably substantial review, and Spirling is an actual author.  I was unable to find non-paywall information about nos. 3, 4 & 5, though no. 4 appears to have been written by Bradley too.  My general sense is of fairly steady but also fairly cursory coverage by one (or perhaps two) journalists reporting for a paper covering matters of local or regional interest.  Also the focus is not on Spirling but on the subjects of his research, namely, Conan Doyle and Robinson.  It is more than I thought existed but on the whole I am not persuaded that it is sufficient to confer notability.  JohnInDC (talk) 14:30, 27 September 2011 (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.