Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen W. Gee


 * 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 00:36, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Stephen W. Gee

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:AUTHOR a search turned up very little evidence. 1 interview on an anime site? A review of first book at SF Signal Savonneux (talk) 08:45, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete, not notable. Kierzek (talk) 13:28, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep as stub. --Article editor (talk) 01:25, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 01:10, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 01:10, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 01:11, 29 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. I cannot find anything to show that this author is notable at this point in time. It looks like he's released one self-published book (not including the short story set in the book's universe, which is also self-published) that has not received coverage in any place that Wikipedia considers to be reliable. It exists (and FWIW, I'm probably going to buy it since I like the premise) but that by itself is not enough to show notability. The only source on the page is Goodreads, which is absolutely unusable for notability purposes on Wikipedia. It's not even really usable as even a trivial or database type source since it can be edited by almost anyone, since Goodreads isn't really all that exclusive about who they turn into a librarian. The guy just isn't notable per Wikipedia's guidelines. To warrant even a stub article we'd need enough sources to show that he'd pass WP:NAUTHOR and they just aren't out there. Just existing as an author hasn't been a qualification for notability for years now. If he gains more coverage than what's above then it can be re-created at that point, but the sources just aren't there at this point in time. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  03:35, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, neither of the above sources are usable. The SF Signal article isn't actually a review, it's actually an article where Gee is one of several people that are talking about their favorite genre shows of 2014. It's not even an interview where he discusses his work. He does, however, mention that he blogs for Random Curiosity, which is the "interview" linked to above, making it a WP:PRIMARY source - especially since it was published by Gee himself. (He goes under the moniker "Stilts" on the site and the article isn't an interview as much as it's just him telling you why you should read the book.) However I do need to note that even if he wasn't a writer for the site it would still be a self-published source since it looks to be your typical blog. It's a popular one, but it's still a blog and there's really no true editorial oversight there, at least not the type that would pass through Wikipedia's notoriously strict guidelines for RS. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  03:45, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I've also redirected his book's page to his author's page here. He's only really published the one thing, so the book wouldn't pass notability guidelines either. I'd originally redirected it with the expectation that I'd be able to find sourcing for the author's page and then we could maybe justify having one article instead of two, but it doesn't look like either the book or the author currently pass notability guidelines. Don't take this badly, it's just insanely difficult for people and books - especially self-published ones - to pass notability guidelines and there are actually a lot of insanely popular self-published people/books that currently fail notability guidelines. I mean, the Play to Live series is pretty popular and has a fairly decently sized fandom (enough to where the newly released book 5 is #888 in the Kindle store), but it's never received any coverage that would have it pass notability guidelines. It's just that difficult to get that coverage and to pass notability guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  03:51, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:16, 29 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - not enough coverage in RS to be notable. Fyddlestix (talk) 18:45, 31 August 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.