Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sri Vishwanath (author)


 * 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. L Faraone  05:27, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Sri Vishwanath (author)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable author lacking ghits and Gnews. red dog six (talk) 15:36, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  smt cha hal   (talk) 15:45, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  smt cha hal   (talk) 15:45, 5 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. My reasons are:
 * 1) The author has consistenly featured in the top 100 most popular authors in spirituality by Amazon. This should settle the issue once and for all. The rankings fluctuate so he could have moved few places above or below.
 * 2) Over 400000 books have been downloaded in the last 12 months which is a highly significant factor.
 * 3) He has been featured in the top 20 in Stress Management and Hinduism for more than a year. You can see the links below. You will see below The Power of Visualization in the top 20 . And his book 7 Common Signs of a spiritual awakening is in the top 20 http://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/digital-text/158442011/ref=pd_zg_hrsr_kstore_1_5_last
 * 4) He has been featured in Huffington Post and comparison with Richard Dawkins has been made http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sri-vishwanath/
 * 5) His books have been featured by three of the worlds biggest digital sites in the world
 * Pixel of Ink featured his book on 31st December http://www.pixelofink.com/hot-deal-the-power-of-visualization-only-99c/
 * Ereadernewstoday.com features his book every quarter http://ereadernewstoday.com/great-kindle-books-for-1-22-13/6724641/
 * Fkbookstips featured his book today http://www.fkbooksandtips.com/

Combined these three sites above reach out to more than million people worldwide. He has got a facebook fan fllowing of more than 70000 fans writes daily http://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Secret-of-Bhagavad-Gita/158983960821997

If these all does not make a person an author selling 400000 books, featured in top 100 writing for the best online sites being featured by the best sites then I don't know what else can! -- Mad  Moron  17:14, 5 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment - Please review the criteria in WP:N, WP:GNG, and WP:AUTHOR and describe how the individual meets this criteria.   red dog six  (talk)


 * Keep - Amazon has recently announced that its digital sales through Amazon kindle has surpassed physical books. With one million amazon kindles every two weeks there are many new authors who are becoming successful in the digital age. Sri Vishwanath seems to fit into the new successful authors of digital age and has the right credentials--Vighu10081 (talk) 18:14, 5 May 2013 (UTC) — Vighu10081 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Comment - Please review the criteria in WP:N, WP:GNG, and WP:AUTHOR and describe how the individual meets this criteria.   red dog six  (talk)


 * SPEEDY DELETE - Yet another article created by a suspected WP:PAID/WP:PROMO crew. I can confirm it was definitely created by a sockpuppet.   NOT NOTABLE.  PeterWesco (talk) 01:16, 6 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - Reddog and Peter Wesco I might be new but that does not take away the essence of what I am writing because the author does meet all the criteria listed in your conditions. Please read it out of love and don’t just brush it away. Every new author who has made it big internationally with sales figures and book rankings needs to get a start. So please go through the links. It is a reqest reddog and peter. appreciate your time

He meets four of the criteria required for author inclusion as per your guidelines

The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.

Sri Vishwanath has been endorsed by Mark Victor Hansen. Mark Victor Hansen has written the foreword to his first book. Jack canfield has given him testimonial.

If a person who is ranked in the top 100 most popular authors by Amazon is not an important figure than who is. Amazon themselves says most popular authors and he has been not for one day but for a whole year and more please check links

Yesterday he was 91 today hei s no 72. I don’t understand in todays digital world if an author is popular in amazon that ends the case for his popularity

http://www.amazon.com/author-rank/Religion-Spirituality/digital-text/158280011/ref=ntt_at_kar_B005HA6G0G#8

The person is a significant contributor to, a subject of, or used as an expert source by major news agencies or publications.

Huffington Post run by Arriana Huffington takes only experts. Sri Vishwanath is an expert in Vedanta a Indian philosophy and huffington post is in the top 100 sites in the world

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sri-vishwanath/

The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.

Sri has written eleven books and his book “The Secret of Bhagavad Gita and “The Power of Vedas” are considered path breakers in the field of Vedanta and you can see that he is many times listed on side with peers like Eknath Easwaran. You will see that his two books including 7 common signs of a spiritual awakening have consistenly featurd in the top 20 in Hinduism

http://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/digital-text/158442011/ref=pd_zg_hrsr_kstore_1_5_last

The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.

Amazon like wikepedia is an open platform where independent periodical reviews take place. He has got hundreds and thousands of reviews in Amazon which you can see.

Also you should know that today the top 3 sites in digital books have featured him. That itself endorses Sri. You should take note that the sites listed below have more than 5 million readers

Pixel of Ink featured his book on 31st December http://www.pixelofink.com/hot-deal-the-power-of-visualization-only-99c/

·        Ereadernewstoday.com features his book every quarter http://ereadernewstoday.com/great-kindle-books-for-1-22-13/6724641/

·        Fkbookstips featured his book today http://www.fkbooksandtips.com/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vighu10081 (talk • contribs) 02:27, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. This author isn't notable. I'll break it down as to why none of the sources or arguments here will keep the article: (expand this for more info)


 * 1) Amazon is not usable as a reliable source in any context and sales on Amazon have no weight here on Wikipedia. It's been proven that sales can be manipulated or misrepresented in any source, but especially Amazon and especially when you start dissecting it down to a specific genre. It's not as easy as waving a hand and you get into the top 100, but it's pretty common for someone to offer a free book and get into the top 100 and then claim that they are notable because they have sold a lot of books.
 * 2) Sales or circulation do not equal out to notability here on Wikipedia. They just make it more likely that something will get coverage, which this author hasn't. There's also a real issue of verifiability when it comes to sales. How do we know that he's actually had almost a half a million downloads in the last year? That's not exactly a small number and that number is far more than some of the NYT bestselling authors do in a year. Since you're saying that he's had that many downloads, it's a bit fishy that he'd have that many downloads and have received no coverage.
 * 3) When it comes to the specific categories of Amazon, that's not really that difficult to achieve a higher rank. The smaller and more specific you go, the fewer books you really have to actively compete with. I don't want to say that nobody cares about how well you sell in specific categories in Amazon, but well... nobody cares about how someone sells in specific categories other than the authors themselves. Mainstream media doesn't really care in the slightest. It's when the sales get so big that they start becoming the number one seller on Amazon that people in the media start actively thinking about covering the book and its author.
 * 4) The Huffington Post is not usable as a reliable source because it's ultimately a blog that anyone can sign up and edit. The link that has been provided is a bio written by Vishwanath himself. That makes it a primary source and primary sources cannot show notability. If it was the owner of the HuffPo herself writing on him, then that might be usable.
 * 5) None of the download sites mentioned are really considered to be notable or a reliable source. They're ultimately places authors use to advertise their books and sales are made through these pages, so they would never be usable because they're ultimately merchant sites.
 * 6) The size of a fanbase doesn't really matter, at least not until it reaches mammoth proportions. The only time a fanbase can give notability is if it's reached cult status... which means that the fandom would have received coverage in reliable sources. This is not the case in this instance.
 * 7) As far as forewords go, those don't count because they're published in the book and are considered primary sources. (WP:PRIMARY) Now when it comes to claims of Jack Canfield giving a testimonial, you'd have to first prove that he actually did give a testimonial and you'd have to prove that it's more than just a book blurb. By that I mean that it's an actual review of Vishwanath and his work and not just a few sentences that you'd find on the cover of a book. These blurbs are so commonplace in the book world that they've long since stopped being anything that would really give notability here on Wikipedia, if they ever did.


 * Ultimately this all boils down to coverage in reliable sources, which Vishwanath nor his works have received. None of the arguments so far really work as far as WP:AUTHOR go and he would have to pass notability guidelines in order to merit an article. You can argue that he's popular, has had an exorbitant amount of downloads, and has gained coverage in non-reliable sources, but none of those count towards notability regardless of how many people come in and try to argue those points. We don't keep articles based upon unreliable sources or popularity, nor do we keep them because it'd be nice to keep it or because someone might become notable one day. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   04:11, 6 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Most of what you are saying are baseless because you have no clue of how publishing industry is moving towards

Please read.. U are not reading the arguments i have put forth. LEt me answer all your arguments. i have been in publishing for mroe than two decades

1) Amazon is not usable as a reliable source in any context and sales on Amazon have no weight here on Wikipedia. It's been proven that sales can be manipulated or misrepresented in any source,

Amazon's last year sales were $30 billion and you are saying it is not a reliable source. You must be in a cave to make such a statement. One million kindles are sold every two weeks. Regarding manipulation you can manipulate something for a day or two not for long. Sri has been in the top 100 in most popular authors for more than 18 months. Please wake up and go through the link. Yesterday he was 72 today he is 45. It is a shame that one is not conversant with the happenings of the industry and the changes and has view points which are absolutely baeless. take a look at the link below. he is no 45. Please read.

http://www.amazon.com/author-rank/Religion-Spirituality/digital-text/158280011/ref=ntt_at_kar_B005HA6G0G#5

2) How do we know that he's actually had almost a half a million downloads in the last year? That's not exactly a small number and that number is far more than some of the NYT bestselling authors do in a year. Since you're saying that he's had that many downloads, it's a bit fishy that he'd have that many downloads and have received no coverage.

You perhaps answered your own question which is precisely what i am saying. U are not in tab with the current industry. Please dont be so rude on someone because you have no idea of the industry. Traditionally coverage is done only for paperback sales through NYT new authors are killing it in amazon kindle. There are hundreds of authors who have sold over a million copies. please do some research. Think about it. Amazon has had over a billion kindle sales so far, and if a person is listed in the to 100 for a year do some maths and you will know 400k download is a small figure. Do one more thing every day monitor whether the author is in top 100 or not do it for a year and you will find 365 days out of 365 he is in top 100. check the link do some research please dont think the old way things have changed

http://www.amazon.com/author-rank/Religion-Spirituality/digital-text/158280011/ref=ntt_at_kar_B005HA6G0G#5

3) when it comes to the specific categories of Amazon, that's not really that difficult to achieve a higher rank. The smaller and more specific you go, the fewer books you really have to actively compete with.

That is why i say you dont read. The category he is competing is the strongst. it is stress management have a look. there is dale carneigie, spencor johnson. u must be kidding to say all this please wake up dude and get this thing rolling

http://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/digital-text/156574011/ref=pd_zg_hrsr_kstore_3_5_last

4) None of the download sites mentioned are really considered to be notable or a reliable source. They're ultimately places authors use to advertise their books and sales are made through these pages, so they would never be usable because they're ultimately merchant sites

It is readers that make for authors credibility and not coverage. Coverage can by bought but readers cannot be.The three download sites Pixel of Ink, Ereadernewstoday, and Fkbooks and tips are the largest in digital sales. Do some research these three sites provide 30% trafic to USA. That should be clear and they dont accept paid ads my dear. Try to list one book of yours in a year you will fail. They go only by merit. U can submit as many times none of yours will be featured. It is not that you pay them. You are sitting in a cave. www.pixelofink.com is ranked no 7440 in Alexa,ereadernewstoday.com is 6993

What more do you want. You want Jack canfield, Mark Victor Hansen to write to wikepedia and tell you come on tell what you want but please understand that press coverage is not waht makes an author today that age is gone... It is readership and readership alone and digital sales rules. Please wake up and i hope any senior admin looks at this whole thing and sets it to rest — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vighu10081 (talk • contribs) 07:08, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm actually fairly aware of many of the trends of the publishing world and of how Amazon works, and I'd really like to remind you of WP:CIVIL when trying to address the statements I've made. Comments such as "you must have been living in a cave" aren't really all that nice. I'm fully aware that Amazon is a large business and has made millions of dollars, but the key word there is business. Amazon is not usable as a reliable source. Ever. As far as sales on Amazon go, those still don't matter when it comes to notability. It's not just Amazon- sales from any retailer will not count towards notability. There are many, many authors that make the NYT bestseller list in various formats (print, ebook) but still do not pass notability guidelines. Popularity in sales do not count towards notability. It just makes it more likely that they will gain coverage. As far as knowing sales numbers, I'm saying that because it's easy to claim something but it's harder to prove it. You can say that it's likely that someone will get close to a half a million downloads, but that's something that's difficult to prove in reliable sources. You can say that he's been downloaded five billion times, but until you have proof in a secondary, reliable source that claim is just a claim. Even then it'd have to go in-depth, as sales numbers are considered to be a WP:TRIVIAL source. As for the other websites, those still aren't considered reliable sources regardless of how high they are or aren't in Alexa ratings. Popularity does not mean that a source is reliable and believe me, these are not reliable sources. You can argue until you're blue in the face, but the end result is that your arguments still have to fall within WP:AUTHOR and they aren't. You could ask Canfield and Hansen to write articles on their own websites about the author, giving reviews of his work. That would help, but I sort of doubt that this would be enough. It'd still be pretty much just two sources and we'd need more than that to show a depth of coverage. I'm not saying that Vishwanath isn't an author. Nobody is questioning that. What we're questioning is whether he's a notable author per Wikipedia's guidelines and he fails notability guidelines. You could present the Amazon website as an argument over and over again and it would still fail to show notability. People have presented this argument in AfD many, many times before and in a more succinct and polite manner. It didn't work then and it won't work now. No admin worth their salt would close this as a keep with those sources. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   07:54, 6 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: Also, please do not put "keep" twice. You've already put "keep" once and while you can continue to debate, you shouldn't keep putting "keep" in the header of your comments. I would, however, like to ask that unless you have further sourcing other than the ones you've posted or arguments that fall within WP:AUTHOR, that we move any further debating to either a user talk page (you can use mine, if you like) or to the talk page of the article itself. I don't want to bog down the AfD with paragraphs and paragraphs of text that just repeat the same thing over and over again. 07:57, 6 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep The word notable is based on quality of content and commercial/social applicability. This discussion will become only personal with more arguments. Author is an author and if you dont give weightage to Amazon when it says "Most popular authors" it is not right. "Most popular means " those who are read who are worthy of reading. I would suggest someone senior looks at it as there is no reason not to mention this author. Every proof suggests he has a case and you are just defending your own claims. Any person who has written one book will blindly understand what an author means. Anyone who has 100 readers will understand what an author means. You can take this claim to any of the top 100 authors and ask them if this guy meets the criteria of notable authors and all of them will agree. You are denying the results and proof and basing your arguments simply on your power to comment. that will not go anywhere. We need an aribitator to solve this issue  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vighu10081 (talk • contribs) 08:03, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

And one mor thing i am sorry when i said " living in a cave" if that hurt you a thousand apologies. did not mean that. i love you as a human being we are humans first and then what we are. so very sorry for that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vighu10081 (talk • contribs) 08:09, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * CommentAgain, if you want to comment further, use the word "comment" in bold. Multiple keep votes will be struck. As far as "most popular" goes, if you want to lobby Wikipedia to have popularity and sales rankings count towards notability here on Wikipedia, you're more than welcome to do so. Until that is changed, we have to go by the current standards of notability here on Wikipedia, which the author fails. Again, nobody is questioning whether or not he's an author. We're questioning whether or not he's notable per Wikipedia's guidelines, not any personal criteria on your or my end. I will open up a 3rd party page to mediate, but I very seriously doubt that they will agree that Amazon sales count towards notability here on Wikipedia, given that it's been discarded as an argument for notability here on Wikipedia multiple times. I do accept your apology, but please try to be more polite when commenting. I know it must be frustrating when you try to argue a point and get told that it doesn't count towards notability, but the fact is that Amazon sales and sales in general mean little to nothing here on Wikipedia. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   08:12, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

thanks what sort of proof do you want in addition. if you are the admin i can provide graph screenshots from sri's account that will set everything to rest about numbers. cannot provide that here because it is confidential but can certainly provide it via email. what other source do you need because i think you please research this three sites pixel of ink, ereadernewstoday they are more big than any coverage and consists of all American readers. Their endorsment are far superior than even New york times please understand please go through those two sites talk to them email them. He does figure in wikepedia's "notable author" we have to jsut approach it from a fresh pair of eyes. It is not one book the author has written thirteen books, and we need a publishing expert and a wikepedia authority to close this issue it is very sad if this guy does not make it. it will not do anything to him or me personally but it would be a sad case of wikepedia denying the right people the platform it has meant to provide and that would be very very very bad.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vighu10081 (talk • contribs) 08:32, 6 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete No coverage in notable sources. Once he receives such coverage, the article may be suitable for inclusion, but not until then. Sales figures are not coverage, and, in any event, confidential "graph screenshots" are not permitted as sources on WP, unless and until they are publicly published and commented on by reliable third party sources. I'll also note that if someone has access to such confidential material, it could be argued that they have a conflict of interest, and it would be important to avoid giving that impression. Anaxial (talk) 09:06, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per Anaxial. Not only does the person seem to be non-notable, but there is a lot of information that needs citations. Also, the article is written in an overly exaggerated tone.  smt cha hal  (talk) 09:15, 6 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Strongcomment' There is no publishing house or author who can reveal sales figure publicly. so it always confidential. only — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vighu10081 (talk • contribs) 09:45, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Then, I am afraid, they cannot be used as sources or evidence on WP. I am not saying that they are incorrect, or that they should be published, only that they can't be used. Anaxial (talk) 09:50, 6 May 2013 (UTC)


 * rankings are common. Sales figures are always stated but proof is never given proof is always confidential. And i think the fact that an author becomes non-notable because he is notfeatured in top media does not fit into the Wikepedia vision because a author any day any time becomes notable when he has got outsstanding content, is an expert on the subject and has got a huge readership. I dont know what else makes a author notable. So please dont try to kill this whole thing based on ego issues. The author is notable and you cannot consider him non-notable under any means except through judgemental thinking. I would like experts in publishing industry to view this and comment not admins and editors because they dont seem to get the point and keep saying it is not notable as per wikipedia guideliness. That is not right. Guidelines is always subtle and needs experts on the subject. There is no reason on earth the author be denied the wikepedia platform based on the reasons stated above — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vighu10081 (talk • contribs) 09:45, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Leaving aside the issue that WP is an encyclopedia not a "platform", the argument that "admins and editors" should not comment on an AfD (or should be given little weight if they do) and that WP guidelines should not be used as the basis for discussion is an interesting one, but I fear it may fundamentally misunderstand the nature of WP. Sorry. Anaxial (talk) 10:04, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, Publishers Weekly will report yearly on sales figures for various different formats, which includes e-books. In many cases they'll reveal exact numbers, although it's far more common for them to list the exact numbers of the physical books sold.  Others report on this as well, but PW is usually one of the most well known sources for book sale numbers. Now as far as book sales numbers go, this article is a good example as to why sales numbers are not seen as a very reliable source of notability here on Wikipedia. Even if someone says that they have achieved them through no outside element such as a marketing company or by buoying their sales via free giveaways, there is always a large enough amount of doubt as far as this goes. If you want to blame anyone, blame the people who scammed their way onto the top of the bestselling lists, but this is pretty much why we can't use sales numbers as a sign of notability here on Wikipedia. And as far as experts in the publishing and literary worlds go, you're assuming that every person who contributes is completely unaware of the publishing world. I'm no Tim Spalding or Michiko Kakutani, but I'm confident enough in the publishing world to say that I'd probably know a little more than most. Tokyogirl79  (｡◕‿◕｡)   10:13, 6 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. Fails WP:GNG due to a lack of independent coverage. That's undeniable and there's no reason for the discussion to move beyond that. What does call for scrutiny is the outrageous behavior of those pushing for the article to be kept; for such an obvious issues of WP:ADVERT and WP:FANPAGE, one would almost feel pressed to call for meatpuppet investigations after this article is inevitably deleted. MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:09, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * There's no meat or socking here- it's all one editor, so no need for an investigation. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   10:13, 6 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 11:51, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Our rules for books and authors are necessarily somewhat oriented towards the common forms of formal publication in European-based societies, but we try to adopt them to other cultures also.--although we have great difficulty in some cases in finding material. The present article, however, is not traditional Indian material,for which I would extend great flexibility, but rather self help material published by an indian author, but aimed at the ordinary American market, and distributed in the common way for self-published material on the web,  We have not normally considered downloads or amazon sales as representative of best seller status in any true sense, or as evidence of notability, unless they have been recognized as such by the usual reliable sources not connected with the author or his distributor. Tokyogirl well explains some of the technical reasons why we have difficulty using this sort of data. The sort of RS information that we would need is  totally lacking here.       DGG ( talk ) 14:40, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

It seems this is not a discussion panel this is more of opinions which are hard wired. I have a simple question for all of you guys get into the top 100 most popular authors and stay there for a year in amazon. I find this an absolute waste discussing here because you write as if you know so much but you have no clue of how the digital sales in books work. All you guys know is delete. I wonder if any of you even know what it takes toget to the top 100 most popular authors, this is not an ordinary ranking by amazon. Anyone who is in the list for more than a year would have sold over 500k. I think you guys will be moer happy if this is deleted much like the crufixiation of christ. Good guys being beaten to death. Most of what you are citing will not be accepted if you cease to be an admin or editor you claim power because you are operating inside that perhiphery if you come out of it for a second all what you have written will not hold good. I dont think this is good for wikepedia because none of you are taking any pains in asking authors who haev sold more than a million books in kindle or apple about this issue. I wish all of you good luck and i think it is good for the author to stay away from wikepedia. Wish you all good luck. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vighu10081 (talk • contribs) 15:23, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - "Though this is my first post, I wanted to comment a bit on this discussion. I have been an author for over 40 years with bestsellers to my credit and books in various languages (Spanish, French, Italian, Turkish, Romanian, English, Korean and others) so I know a bit about authors and books. I have met Sri Vishwanath twice in the past decade and found him to be one who desires to help humanity through his writings, lectures and teachings. I have read a number of his books and recommended them to many others. Although there are pros and cons in any argument or discussion, I still believe, as the late Dr. Thomas Dooley once said, 'It is better to light one candle than to curse the darkness.' Let Sri Vishwanath continue to share his message with those who may need the help. We all are free to read or not read his works, to believe or not believe his messages. --Johnharri (talk) 15:39, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[[User:johnharri|


 * Comment - ...and how does this meet Wikipedia criteria for inclusion? red dog six  (talk) 16:36, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * SOCKPUPPETS Closing admin please note that the article was created by a sockpuppet of a banned spammer and the SPA accounts that are now voting have also been included in those investigations and are awaiting a checkuser.  PeterWesco (talk) 20:04, 6 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I've blocked a sock or two here, but can't get a CU or make a determination for some of the newer editors, due to a lack of edits, so I shouldn't !vote here even as I've looked at the material. I still can't help but to notice how DGG's has summed it up quite neatly.  Dennis Brown - 2¢  © Join WER 23:36, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Doesn't meet any of the criteria listed under WP:AUTHOR and while I admit that being ranked #38 in 99¢ Kindle downloads in a subcategory on Amazon is more than I've accomplished in my own life, it still is an accomplishment that has not resulted in the subject of this article enjoying "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" as required by WP:N.  DanielPenfield (talk) 00:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Snowball/Speedy Delete under WP:EVADE. Should be logically applied to all articles created by this user. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:35, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Excellent suggestion, Mr. Gertler. The efforts of this user and what did, in fact, turn out to be some socks are also as strong an argument against keeping as what the rest of us have said here. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:59, 7 May 2013 (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.