Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard English, writer and entrepreneur


 * 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. None of the new editors/single purpose accounts have provided evidence to refute the established editors arguments that point out that the article currently fails the notability guideline. As such those arguments have been given little weight. Davewild (talk) 17:02, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Richard English, writer and entrepreneur

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Promotional article about minor author.  DGG ( talk ) 05:30, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * KEEP Magnifico writer.  Should be on file at Wiki.  Plenty of verifiable evidence in TV footage, radio, printed word etc.  Internet is not that reliable as used by invasive advertisers, hackers, pornographers, viagra salesmen etc.  Barbie Husrt (talk) 15:25, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Seems to fail general notability guidelines. I couldn't find anything specifically about this Robert English on the internet that supported any reason for this article to remain here. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:54, 14 October 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 10:35, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Badly fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. Also, WP is not for WP:PROMO pieces, such as this one. It is possible to find remaindered copies of a few of his books on the web, but not reviews. Should not be confused with Prof. Richard English, the terrorism expert. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 14:56, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I found plenty of references to Richard English, especially in the web site Rocks Back Pages and Constable Robinson catalgoue. There is no failure of notability. Maggie Worsley — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hugh Talbot (talk • contribs) 14:23, 17 October 2011  — Hugh Talbot (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * RETAIN Passes notability criterion easily. He has been published in collections with Will Self and Tracey Emin. Signed Mark Ely — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark Ely (talk • contribs) 17:17, 17 October 2011 (UTC)  — Mark Ely (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * KEEP I recently heard one of his short stories on mainstream radio. It was fab.  Since then I've read others.  Equally fab.  Plenty of references if you look properly. --Irene Walker75 (talk) 17:06, 18 October 2011 (UTC) — Irene Walker75 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * If you have references, please list them here. Being on the radio and having fans does not automatically mean that you are notable and worth an entry.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:26, 19 October 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79
 * KEEP* We, a British office for an Indian production company, are working on an adaptation of one of his short stories for a Bollywood production. He has a large popularity in the sub-continent amongst the English speaking public. I can find plenty of references to him.  It would be shame to exclude such a wonderful talent from your library.  Shivani Dishan Shivani Dishan (talk) 17:16, 18 October 2011 (UTC) — Shivani Dishan (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * But Wikipedia is not a library. It's an online encyclopedia. Popularity doesn't always equal notability. For example, podcast novelist Phil Rossi is an amazing author with a sizable fanbase on the internet, but he is not really considered to be notable as far as guidelines here go. I can also say the same for several other authors. I also have to say that if you have references that would be encyclopedic and not vanity pieces, then you should be showing these to back up your claims of notability. Almost every link I've found that is about this author is a promotional link. Writing a book does give you instant notability, nor does having a film adaptation do it either. Still fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:26, 19 October 2011 (UTC)TOKYOGIRL79
 * I also want to ensure that you know that these things are not judged on a vote. The powers that be of Wikipedia look at the arguments on either side and judge based on that, not on how many people vote one way or another. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:28, 19 October 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79
 * Comment If a film is made based on a story of his, and if the film becomes notable, then there will probably be justification for an article, and it would be reasonable to try again. But making one in advance  is promotion for the film.  DGG ( talk ) 16:31, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 'Comment' The keepers above are clearly sock puppets. No other contribs except for here. Jdorney (talk) 22:56, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * KEEP RE doesn't fail the notability criterion at all. Plenty of corroborative evidenece if you just look. I have heard his material on the radio.  Wicked stuff!  His entry should stay.  p.s. Mention of a film with no mention of the title is not self-promotion. Ravi Patel20 Ravi Patel20 (talk) 11:09, 20 October 2011 (UTC)  — Ravi Patel20 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment: Just to let you know, these things aren't decided on a vote. You do have a say, but that say is not a vote. The closing administrator will be the one who ultimately decides whether or not this person is notable enough for an article. I should also warn you that so far people with no prior edits have been coming on and claiming that there's tons of "evidence and links" to prove notability but have not added any of that actual proof. If you or the author have links to prove notability, please add them. Just claiming that links exist or that you're a fan is not enough to prove notability. We don't give out wikipedia entries based on the number of fans somebody is claimed to have. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:15, 21 October 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79
 * 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.