Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sean Wilkins


 * 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 12:16, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Sean Wilkins

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:BLP of a technical and textbook writer, referenced entirely to his own self-published profiles on the websites of directly affiliated organizations and companies with no evidence of reliable source coverage about him in media shown at all. As always, every writer does not get an automatic inclusion freebie on Wikipedia just because his books can be verified as existing -- he must pass WP:CREATIVE for something, and must be the subject of reliable source coverage to verify it independently of his own self-created web presence. We are an encyclopedia, not a free LinkedIn clone. And while I can't prove anything definitive, I strongly suspect a direct conflict of interest since the photo was taken directly from his own website but claimed to be under public domain copyright permissions. Bearcat (talk) 19:00, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:10, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:10, 24 August 2017 (UTC)


 * @Bearcat I wrote the article with no affiliation or conflict. This individual has over 30 publications which are verifiable by numerous references and sources. I'm happy to continue to contribute, but maybe you should as well. The particular photo in question is also published on numerous websites, in addition to his bio in published materials. There are similar technical writers on Wikipedia with less verifiable information. Since this is my first article, and wanted to try and do something simple, I'm looking for guidance on what independently sources we are looking for here. For example Barns and Noble has his materials posted. Does this meet the criteria? From the WP:CREATIVE guidelines, Sean Wilkins is also cited and referenced in numerous works that he is not the author of, and papers with citations. Would these qualify if added? Thanks. --Toddman4 (talk) 21:47, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * No, online bookstores don't count, because every book available for sale there will automatically have a profile. And no, simply being cited in other people's works isn't a notability criterion either — he has to be the subject of other people's works, not just have his name mentioned, before those works assist notability at all. The only type of sourcing that can support notability for Wikipedia's purposes is reliable source coverage about him in media: books about him, newspaper articles about him, magazine profiles about him, documentary films about him, and on and so forth. Bearcat (talk) 21:51, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the additional information. I was looking at Bill_Thompson_(technology_writer) as a reference, and see a lot of similarities between these two articles. I do see 1 reference where an article is written about the subject, however all of the other references are either broken or similar to this article. I believe there may be some available media sources that we can use for this article. I'll search and update based on the criteria.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toddman4 (talk • contribs) 23:54, 24 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:TOOSOON and WP:MILL. This writer is obviously still at the beginning of his career, and hasn't made an impact as shown by lack of reviews about his works. There are very many technical writers, and we are not a directory of all of them, Bearian (talk) 02:04, 1 September 2017 (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.