Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RJ Parker


 * 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:44, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

RJ Parker

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Contested A7 speedy, references appear borderline as to establish notability... Tawker (talk) 22:56, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 6 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep I believe it should be kept based on the work he has done in regards to notable cases and prominent serial killers of our time. He is an established author that has worked with Peter Vronsky and also is a publisher of other authors in the genre. I believe if his notability is in question, then many other authors/writers should be in question as well.  Writers such as Bill Bauer or Gillian Chan have hardly any references or material information, yet are not in contention.  Those are just a couple that I randomly chose from a list in Wikipedia.Jasonwilczak (talk) 06:33, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. Regarding subject having worked with Peter Vronsky please read WP:NOTINHERITED. Regarding Bill Bauer and Gillian Chan please read WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Sam Sailor Sing 12:34, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Reply. Fair enough point on the WP:NOTINHERITED concept. As for the WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, that isn't valid, in my opinion.  If one can establish that even though the "law", A7, reads a specific way there are many other instances of where articles have been accepted that toe the line or simply don't follow it.  This can be used to set Precedent to defend the idea that the article in question should stay and not be singled out as a "special case".  In the event of List of Canadian writers, I believe this is the case.  Additionally, this article has more references and biography citations than the ones pointed out.  Jasonwilczak (talk) 12:53, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Bauer's article doesn't even make a basic claim of notability in the first place, so it can be deleted anytime anybody decides to take the initiative has now had a solid reliable source added to it. It could still be nominated for deletion if anybody felt strongly enough that it isn't making enough of a notability claim, but it's no longer strictly comparable to this situation. Chan has been a Governor General's Award nominee, however — so while the article certainly has sourcing problems and could still be deleted if better references can't be found, it is already making a more substantive and compelling claim of basic notability than either Bauer's or Parker's articles, in their current states, are. (And before you try to give Parker's "World Book Award" win as an analogue to Chan's GG, it bears mention that not all literary awards are equally notable either. The GGs are an elite national award with extensive coverage in reliable sources — the Canadian equivalent to the Pulitzer Prize — whereas I can't find enough RS coverage on Google to properly determine what the "World Book Awards" even are.) Also, both of those articles were created in 2003, a time when Wikipedia was still quite new and our notability and sourcing rules weren't nearly as thoroughly developed and codified as they are now — a lot of stuff that seemed perfectly fine back then falls afoul of our rules as they stand now. Somebody has to actually catch these things before they can be dealt with, however, so the fact that something has slipped through the cracks does not create an exemption from Wikipedia's rules. A bad old article should be flagged for improvement or deletion, by all means — but it does not constitute a license to ignore Wikipedia's sourcing requirements in a new article being created today. Bearcat (talk) 17:22, 6 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. Article subject lacks significant coverage in reliable, independent, secondary sources to just meet WP:BASIC, and we are far from WP:NAUTHOR. (Article was created in main space in March looking something like this, complete with announcements of upcoming books and direct links to Amazon, and despite my pruning was deleted under G11 on 25 March.) Sam Sailor Sing 13:52, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. Yes, this is true and I appreciate all that you did to help get it into the correct format. The reason for deletion was because a "reliable" source marked the post as having been procured.  I spoke with the admin in regards to this matter and resolved that point.  The admin did not object to me re-posting the article with a more objective view point and I even went a step further and removed anything that could have been deemed promotional and not wiki-worthy. Jasonwilczak (talk) 14:38, 6 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - Fails notability guidelines.  red dog six  (talk) 16:25, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * What this article lacks, as written, is anything that even approaches being a reliable source under our rules. Rather, every single source here is (a) his own website, (b) the non-notable blog of a non-notable other writer, or (c) a press release hosted on a PR database. Such sources might be acceptable for additional sourcing of facts after his notability had been demonstrated by reliable secondary sources, but cannot demonstrate notability in and of themselves — meaning that nothing here properly demonstrates that he's gotten past WP:WRITER. The subject matter that a writer happens to write about does not automatically confer an exemption from Wikipedia's other notability rules, so the fact that he wrote about serial killers is irrelevant to the question of whether he's notable enough or not — and a writer does not inherit notability just by virtue of having worked with other notable writers, either. It's certainly possible that a properly sourced article about him might be attainable in the future, so there should be no prejudice against recreation if and when the availability of sources improves — but this version of the article ain't cutting it, and after 20 full pages of Google searching I have yet to find even one source about him that passes muster. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 16:44, 6 April 2014 (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.