Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Salerno


 * 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 keep. Clear consensus that coverage in reliable sources is substantive enough. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:07, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Steve Salerno
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Lack of notability. Is this individual notable enough to have a Wikipedia page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janers0217 (talk • contribs) 00:46, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Whilst the article needs work, it would appear he has several publications and wide coverage. Seems like this is enough to meet WP:AUTHOR The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series).  Mr.weedle (talk) 04:46, 18 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:52, 18 September 2022 (UTC)


 * PLEASE CONSIDER: I am the subject of this page, Steve Salerno. I had nothing to do with its creation. I normally wouldn’t butt in except that the circumstances are extraordinary and relevant. AFAIK this page has existed more or less in its current form, without complaint from editor or readers, since its inception. Until the past few weeks. That is when I became the subject of a campaign of targeted harassment and cancellation. This campaign accelerated over the past 24 hours in response to a tweet of mine. Threats have been made against me, people have tweeted plainly false and defamatory allegations TO THE FBI, of all places! (I have a 100% unblemished record.) On open Twitter, people encouraged vandalism of this page. Though I cannot make a case that would stand up in court, yet, I find it hard to believe that all of the sudden problems with this page are unrelated to that campaign of online harassment.
 * For the record, I am one of a handful of the nation’s foremost writers on the race and the “woke” phenomenon, and the listing of award and accolades here in this article barely scratches the surface. Since this page went up I have won major journalism award and been selected as “teacher of the year” at my current school, UNLV. I have another book coming out this fall.
 * I’m not suggesting that I deserve to be Wikipedia Man of the Year. I am asking only for fairness. I would hate to see a listing of which OTHERS thought me worthy deleted as part of cancel culture. I hope you take this into consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:27:8700:C5B8:CBF4:8AC4:6295 (talk) 08:17, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * (Indented) I'm sorry, that you've been targeted like that. Ovinus (talk) 14:31, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * This is not the result of an attempt to vandalize your page or harass you. It is merely a question of whether or not you meet the standards set for notability. Janers0217 (talk) 19:03, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Per Mr. weedle. Too many self-published sources, which I've trimmed a bit, but some reliable reviews (or similar) of his book arguing against the efficacy of self-help are at, , . If this AfD closes as keep/no consensus I'll clean up the article further with those sources. Ovinus (talk) 14:31, 18 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep numerous quality sources. If the individual is having problems outside of wiki, we can comment on them so long as they're sourced. Oaktree b (talk) 16:47, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete If more quality sources were found, I might reconsider, but the article as it stands still reads like it has been put together by the subject and/or someone close to them. It is not impartial and does not show that their work meets the criteria of creating a well-known work or collective body of work. Janers0217 (talk) 19:03, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:AUTHOR. The only reliable sources I'm seeing are a book review in Publisher's Weekly and a paragraph in Scientific American, which don't amount to significant coverage. gobonobo  + c 19:13, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per User:Ovinus; there are more than enough sources to satisfy WP:GNG as well as WP:AUTHOR #1 and #3. I am not counting the self-published articles here; this appears to be a classic case of "puffery by omission" i.e., extant neutral sources that demonstrate notability being omitted for promotional reasons. In other words, it is a cleanup issue, not a notability issue; AfD is not cleanup. A few more relevant sources: [//www.jstor.org/action/doAdvancedSearch?group=none&q0=%22steve+salerno%22&q1=&q2=&q3=&q4=&q5=&q6=&sd=&ed=&pt=&isbn=&f0=all&c1=AND&f1=all&c2=AND&f2=all&c3=AND&f3=all&c4=AND&f4=all&c5=AND&f5=all&c6=AND&f6=all&acc=off&la=&so=rel|JSTOR results (not all relevant but some)]; some more reviews [//www.publishersweekly.com/9781400054091 by Publishers Weekly] and [//www.psychologytoday.com/us/articles/200507/pt-bookshelf Psychology Today]. This took me all of 5 minutes to find so no doubt there is more. Gnomingstuff (talk) 19:22, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep agree with above and has a major google footprint extending beyond works cited. Also a movie was made of his book which I am adding to page if that is ok Gricele ladera (talk) 21:11, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I am sorry I think screwed up change I made about his movie, I came her mostly bc of waht hes going through on twitter but i think the movie reference is valid if you could correct format for me, so sorry i wont try again! 2600:8801:27:8700:2C06:5211:8003:EC27 (talk) 21:25, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Wasn't his book and the subsequent about the murder of Price Daniel, Jr.? If that was the extent of his notability, wouldn’t a mention on Daniel’s page suffice? Janers0217 (talk) 03:16, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Most of the reviews, etc. that I have found seem to involve a book about the self-help movement, so that definitely isn't the extent of his notability. Gnomingstuff (talk) 15:23, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:GNG. There is no independent reliable coverage (i.e., not written by Steve himself) of this person that I could find anywhere. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:39, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * DEAR FOLKS, I am, again, the subject person, Steve Salerno. I didn't ask for this page to be created when it was, and I know that I have no vote here, but now that it exists, how can I allow it to become the object of a Twitter vendetta? People are saying provably ludicrous things. GOOGLE ME! Look at the references, the elite publications (the WSJ, Slate, Psychology Today), the podcasts, the top-shelf reviews of SHAM. I know it's considered gauche for the person himself to step forward, but I have the objective weight of evidence on my side. Please do not let this matter be decided by people with an ax to grind. I will not post again. Apologies but it's been hell. 2600:8801:27:8700:105B:E4FF:F4B:4A4F (talk) 01:03, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * This isn’t being decided by people with an ax to grind. It’s not personal; many pages go through this process on this site. Janers0217 (talk) 03:16, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * No one is grinding an axe, we're here to discuss the reliability of sources and if there is enough substantial coverage of the subject to keep the entry. A person may have elements of their past they'd rather not see in wiki, but so long as it's sourced, we cover all views. Oaktree b (talk) 15:12, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - I cleaned up the article some but it needs more work to remove puffery. To answer nom's question, "Is this individual notable enough to have a Wikipedia page?" coverage does show notability. While the article still needs work, it includes wide coverage and reliable, independent sources, many of which are national publications, that clearly show the subject's notability. Meets WP:BASIC and passes both WP:BIO and WP:GNG. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 18:43, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It definitely looks better after you and Ovinus worked on it. Janers0217 (talk) 20:45, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a published author. Not only in books, but also essay articles. One of his published works, resulted in a film being made for TV. Bed of lies (1992). This page should be recognized for notability.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srt1494 (talk • contribs) 11:25, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, just being published doesn't make someone notable. We are looking for reliable sources about the author and their work. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 11:52, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Independent high-level coverage of Salerno and his work:
 * CNN interview with Anderson Cooper (one of several): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vj4Q80tNrrA
 * The Washinton Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/entertainment/books/2005/07/10/snake-oil/769998a2-9f8a-496b-b16c-b8df7f9b51a3/
 * Movie review for Bed of Lies, based on his other book: https://www.rewatchclassictv.com/products/bed-of-lies-abc-tvm-1-20-92
 * Article from major Texas newspaper about the writing of book and making of movie:
 * https://www.newspapers.com/clip/75237241/fort-worth-star-telegram/
 * Coverage of SHAM in PW and Publishers Weekly:
 * https://www.randomhouse.com/crown/Sham/
 * American Psychiatric Assn: https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2005-08024-000 2600:8801:27:8700:F112:4E2E:3C8C:F156 (talk) 18:43, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * That should be Wall Street Journal and Pubishers Weekly. 2600:8801:27:8700:F112:4E2E:3C8C:F156 (talk) 18:44, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Nice, looks good to me but will assess properly before giving an opinion. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 21:46, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Ovinus identifies three good sources and the IP user above provided a few more, most notably a Washington Post review of his work. The article unambiguously meets notability guidelines, although it does need some cleanup. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 22:46, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep One of his books has at least received some positive reviews. Need cleanup rather than deletion. Atighot (talk) 20:53, 22 September 2022 (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.