Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S. W. Hammond


 * 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. Yunshui 雲 水 08:33, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

S. W. Hammond

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NAUTHOR. The references section is a textbook case of WP:REFBOMB with barely an example of significant coverage in a reliable secondary source: the absolute best source of the bunch is this brief review of one of his books from a section titled "Small press watch". I was unable to find professional reviews of any of his work or any other sort of additional coverage of the subject. signed,Rosguill talk 23:33, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. signed,Rosguill talk 23:33, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. signed,Rosguill talk 23:33, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. signed,Rosguill talk 23:33, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Vote for Inclusion

I believe the article does meet WP:NAUTHOR guidelines. In regard to WP:REFBOMB, each citation supports its claim.

In addition to “Small Press Watch” by Midwest Book Review as significant coverage in a secondary source, Sean Byrne of GeekIreland.com has professionally reviewed Hammond’s work. GeekIreland.com is Ireland’s leading pop culture news / review website and hosts contributes to Ireland’s largest pop culture convention each year in Dublin. Also, Hammond has been a featured guest on the “Aspects of Writing” radio show and podcast. The show's original airing was broadcast through AMFM247 to over 5 million terrestrial listeners. Each show, including the airing with Hammond, is then archived and made available through iHeartRadio podcasts. There are also a variety of additional secondary sources discussing Hammond’s work by bloggers and book reviewers listed in the references.

I would be happy to refine the references section to alleviate WP:REFBOMB’ing. When creating the page I was under the impression that each statement needed to be substantiated. I believe each citation directs readers to a place where the subject is addressed thoroughly–not in passing–or proves the claim by providing secondary evidence. Any guidance to alleviate this issue would be appreciated.

Moreover, in User:Rosguill’s nomination calling for the page’s deletion, they admitted that the author has barely provided examples of significant coverage. In addition to the references highlighted above, “barely” still qualifies this page to be included in the Wikipedia community.

I vote that the page be included and will continue working to improve it. signed,WilliamHork talk 17:37, 5 February 2020 UTC


 * I converted the misformatted "Vote for Inclusion" which was set as a section header. No opinion on the AfD. Madam Fatal (talk) 17:53, 5 February 2020 (UTC)


 * N.b. I said "barely an example". The general standard for notability, WP:GNG, requires multiple such examples. Regarding the examples highlighted here, GeekIreland does not publish any masthead or other editorial information about themselves and is thus presumed to not be a reliable source (unless you can provide evidence of it being widely cited or referenced by reliable sources). Being a featured guest on a radio show is unfortunately not an example of independent coverage unless there is extensive analysis of the subject or his work conducted by the hosts, independent from an interview segment. signed,Rosguill talk 18:34, 5 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Upon a quick Google search, GeekIreland is active on a variety of platforms (all major social media, Twitch, Discord, YouTube, etc). Their articles, reviews, and awards are cited by numerous authors and entertainment creators: Geek Ireland remembers Spongebob Squarepants creator Steve Hillenburg by Mark Stephen Hughes, Kronos Rising: Kraken by Max Hawthorne, Maura McHugh (writer) — The Geekies 2015 – the Geek Ireland Awards – Best Irish Writer category, 2015. GeekIreland has also been referenced by IrishTimes, and Kansas City Comic Con. GeekIreland has interviewed numerous celebrities at press junkets, their videos being used and cited across the web.  I have reached out to GeekIreland directly requesting editorial information, until I receive a response their LinkedIn page provides additional information.


 * Being a featured guest on a radio show is, however, an example of notability. I would also argue that the interview does provide extensive analysis of Hammond’s work, The Final Book: Gods, and is an example of independent coverage.  The title of episode is “Writing With The Human Condition In Mind”; Hammond invited to the show because of the host's extensive analysis of the subject. During the hour long discussion, the host routinely references existentialism, philosophy, and character development within the novel, allowing Hammond to elaborate on the host’s interpretation. signed,WilliamHork talk 18:40, 6 February 2020 UTC


 * I think that these arguments miss the mark:
 * Being active on social media does not matter
 * A bunch of writers pointing out that Geek Ireland reviewed their work is not an indication of their reliability
 * The extent of the Irish Times "reference" is mentioning that they saw someone wearing a Geek Ireland logo and calling them a crowd responsible for running “Ireland’s Yellow Pages of Geekery”. When I said "widely referenced" I mean other sources relying or extensively commenting on their reporting, not merely acknowledging that they exist.
 * Videos of them interviewing celebrities don't really mean much, lots of unreliable sources interview celebrities
 * Regardless of how GeekIreland responds to your message on LinkedIn, the fact that they do not list their masthead on their website is a red flag of unprofessional or dishonest conduct, similar to sending a letter without a return address or signing a legal document in crayon.
 * I am skeptical that an interview segment on a non-notable podcast (unclear if it's a professionally produced show or not) contributes much to notability. Here's their website. signed,Rosguill talk 22:25, 6 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I think that User:Rosguill’s scrutiny misses the intent and purpose of Wikipedia. The article is well written, organized, and referenced.  Thought and care was given to its creation, and in no way does its admission tarnish the credibility of Wikipedia.  The references provided satisfy the broad and subjective qualifications set out by the community–the vagueness written within its guidelines are there to satisfy cases such as this—when non-traditional media has been used to create an impact.


 * Each one of User:Rosguill’s numbered points could be argued that outlets such as the New York Times or CNN are irrelevant because they’re not peer reviewed scholarly journals. If that were the case, the majority of the content on Wikipedia would be inadmissible.  It has been proven throughout this transcript; it is undeniable that the reading and writing community—both the consumer and the creator—the active participators who use this content—are using GeekIreland and Aspects of Writing as resources and considers them to be credible and notable.  It purely comes down to the community’s attitude as gatekeepers—the qualifications have been met—it’s now subjective taste in upholding them.


 * I urge you to remember Wikipedia’s anti-establishment roots when making your decision–or else we’d all be using the online version of Encyclopedia Britannica.signed,WilliamHork talk 5:36, 7 February 2020 UTC

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, qedk (t 桜 c) 11:32, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete This is a completely non-notable author. Having one or two kinda sorta okay references does not justify having an article on this website. Bluedude588 (talk) 13:45, 12 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete I've never seen so much text on a page that didn't have very much to say. Definitely a lot of RefBombing. Dorama285 17:38, 19 February 2020 (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.