Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Fountain


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 05:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Richard Fountain

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Declined A7 speedy (by me) as asserts notability. However Google shows next to nothing - couldn't find it on Amazon.com which might at least help indicate something.... First time novelist, suspect this is purely promotional as creator is User:Rafountain0619. Recommend Delete Pedro : Chat  08:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete There is nothing notable here. References come only from his own website, the "review" doesn't speak that well of the book, and is only a general review along with many other titles. As this is a book, I would expect to see it in Amazon as well as other major on-line book sellers, the fact it's not getting much listing, speaks volumes. Both book and author are not notable. No reliable third party references. Arty pants,  Babble 19:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I did the original speedy of this article after research found nothing that showed he could pass WP:CREATIVE. I did find the book on Amazon, but when the publisher doesn't even have a website and the Publisher's Weekly review says, "Paper-thin characters and routine prose don't help the implausible plot," I think we can pass. If at some point he does become notable, it's easy enough to recreate. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 21:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:N and WP:V. Themfromspace (talk) 03:39, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  —Dori (Talk • Contribs) 23:19, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment On the article's talk page, User:24.61.63.100 (who I believe is also User:Rafountain0619) pointed out that the book is found in the holdings of 23 libraries according to WorldCat. I'm not sure if that meets the "[has] works in many significant libraries" portion of WP:CREATIVE or not. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 03:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

As the person who posted this article I think it does meet the criteria established. For example, a brief search revealed that The Wellwishers is available in the following public libraries. This is not a complete listing.

New York Public Library (multiple branches)

Miami Public Library (multiple branches)

Chicago Public Library

San Francisco Public Library

Cleveland Public Library (multiple branches)

Los Angeles Public Library

Austin, TX Public Library

Cambridge, MA Public Library

Wakefield, MA Public Library

Marblehead, MA Public Library

Newton, MA Public Library

Vancouver Public Library

State Library of Western Austrailia 24.61.63.100 (talk) 03:49, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment The part here is has works - this is just one book not works plural. I admire the effort here, and believe any published author has done well - but we need third-party information from reliable sources. For information, in the UK it is a legal requirement that any book with an ISBN has a copy at the British Library - so just being in a collection really does not imply notabilty. For further information both of my parents are multiple (by wich I mean > 300 books in my fathers case) published writers, and one has a Wikipedia entry, so I do know whereof I speak, both as an admin on Wikipedia and as someone with more than a passing knowledge of the publishing world. Pedro : Chat  21:33, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. The article is poorly written, and needs wikification, but it shows some evidence of notability.  The Google searches noted above do, in fact, show some evidence. Bearian (talk) 20:28, 2 March 2009 (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.