Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rich Stowell


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 01:20, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Rich Stowell

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non-notable author that has written a non-notable book. The award he was nominated for (Indie Excellence Award) doesn't seem to be notable either. Erpert (let's talk about it) 19:13, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: The article under discussion here has been rescue flagged by an editor for review by the Article Rescue Squadron.

Erpert, I'm new at using Wikipedia and was quite stunned at your comment to remove my article; especially since I wasn't even done with the editing process. Gone are the days where we had to wait 50 years for a "notable" author. After reading Nine Weeks, I was compelled to share the news about this up and coming author who happened to be a finalist in the Indie Excellence Award - a national competition that saw more submissions this year than previous years. Moreover, after reading carefully at the BIO the following points are made about articles such as the one I've written...The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded."The point about being "worthy of notice" and interesting enought to be recorded" stuck out to me - this article is significant and interesting to the fans out there. So, rather than delete my article, I ask that you reconsider it as an opportunity to share some insight about an up and coming author. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Esjackson (talk • contribs) 20:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)  — Esjackson (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete: The award is not major. Even the creator said that the author is non-notable: "up and coming". Joe Chill (talk) 21:27, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Publish Wikipedia is one of the greatest, if not best source on the web for information. I've been using it for years and I finally found an author worth listing - who I couldn't find - I had to search several places for background information. This article is needed, especially for fans, followers, etc. to learn more about their idols without having to search the entire web. All the information I've written is verifiable, again, which meets the qualification criteria for Wikipedia. The article should maintain the status quo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Esjackson (talk • contribs) 22:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC) — Esjackson (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete Joined the army. Self-published a book. Get the next one published by a publisher, and try again. Peridon (talk) 22:26, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Verifiable is important. So is notability. Lots of things can be verified but aren't notable. Peridon (talk) 22:26, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I think you might be a little confused with how Wikipedia works, Esjackson. That you think Mr. Stowell is an up-and-coming author is all well and good, but he isn't notable yet. Subjects have to be notable before they have a Wikipedia article, not after. By the way, even though you created the article, it isn't yours. Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:41, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete this resume. Fails WP:AUTHOR.    talk 23:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, regretfully, since Mr. Stowell sounds like an admirable person and I'm sure his book is good. But is it self-published. Self-published books almost never qualify as notable under Wikipedia's standards, because they don't usually get any independent coverage as required by WP:AUTHOR, and as far as I can find, this one didn't. --MelanieN (talk) 22:32, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —David Eppstein (talk) 05:41, 13 June 2010 (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.