Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Slaunwhite (2nd nomination)


 * 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. ✗ plicit  13:47, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Steve Slaunwhite
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log )

Does not appear to be notable as an author or copywriter and coverage is limited to self published and other non reliable sources. No significant, in depth coverage of his books and I cannot find evidence that his award is a notable one. Deleted at AfD in 2006 Articles for deletion/Steve Slaunwhite and although that was an entirely different version and since this was created in good faith in 2009, figured AfD v. PROD makes sense. StarM 14:07, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.       StarM 14:07, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.       StarM 14:07, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.       StarM 14:07, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:35, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete. Nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable enough to guarantee him inclusion in Wikipedia just because he exists, but the sourcing is not getting him over WP:GNG. Five of the ten footnotes are just his own work metaverifying its own existence, which is not how you make a writer notable — you get a writer over WP:AUTHOR by showing that his books have been the subjects of media coverage, such as book reviews or news articles about them winning notable literary awards, not just by citing their existence to themselves. But once you chop the five footnotes where the subject was the author of the source, you're left with a self-published press release from his own organization, an award self-cited to the awarding organization's own self-published website about itself rather than media coverage to establish the notability of said award, user-generated reader reviews on Amazon, and a self-published press release from one of his publishers, none of which are support for notability either. There's just one footnote here that counts for anything, by being a real book review published in a real newspaper — but it still takes a hell of a lot more than just one of those to get a person over the bar. I also strongly suspect some form of conflict of interest editing, since the article was created by an WP:SPA whose only edits to any other article but this have involved creating new wikilinks to this article. Bearcat (talk) 16:05, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  12:46, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom and other vote. Jeepday (talk) 15:20, 12 May 2021 (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.