Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robin Esrock


 * 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The result was   nomination withdrawn due to sourcing improvements. Bearcat (talk) 01:19, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Robin Esrock

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:BLP of a writer and television personality, making but not adequately sourcing claims of notability under WP:CREATIVE. In the form I first encountered it, it relied almost entirely on primary sources (e.g. his own website, claims of having written for any given newspaper "sourced" to an article in that newspaper with his byline on it, and on and so forth.) And with all of that stripped out, the article is down to just three reliable sources, of which two are locally distributed community weeklies — so there's actually only one source that counts a whit toward demonstrating notability, but one source isn't enough. Article claims that his book was a bestseller on amazon.ca, but (a) sources it to one of those weeklies, and (b) single-vendor bestsellerdom does not confer notability on a writer (especially not in a niche genre where a writer could actually make the list on a fairly insignificant actual sales total) — it takes The Globe and Mail's cross-vendor bestseller list to get a writer into Wikipedia on the basis of "Canadian bestsellerdom", not one online retailer's genre chart. Furthermore, the article reads suspiciously like a promotional profile, and was created by an WP:SPA who has never made a single edit to Wikipedia that didn't directly pertain to Esrock or his TV show and whose username has the word "media" in it — thus raising the distinct possibility of WP:COI. No prejudice against recreation in the future if it can be written and sourced properly, but this version is a delete. Bearcat (talk) 06:20, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep and cleanup. Google search turns up more sources. The article is a puff piece loaded with peacock words and in need of editing and lots of CN tags. But that is not a reason to delete.Gaff (talk) 00:14, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I have notified the article creator of this discussion on their talk page. (Oddly, that was not done at time of this nom).  They left a message on the article talk page when the article was originally nominated 6 years ago.  Gaff (talk) 03:06, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  22:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  22:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  22:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. Numerous sources, good ones in article now (1/12/2015) plus this one too. Interesting person.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:23, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yup. Some copy editing still needed, but the volume of basic ref repair that's been done here is enough to convince me to withdraw this. Bearcat (talk) 01:19, 14 January 2015 (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.