Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven E. Wedel


 * 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. Euryalus (talk) 13:02, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Steven E. Wedel

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:NBIO. Tagged for notability since June 2008. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 21:50, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep: In my search results, that has enough RS to meet GNG. KGirlTrucker81talk what I'm been doing 22:36, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:47, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment, hi, i'm having trouble finding reliable book reviews of this author, so far only Buffalo & Erie County Public Library shows some reviews of After obssession by BookList, Publishers Weekly, and School Library Journal, ISFDB lists him but shows no reviews or awards, would appreciate some links/citations, thanks. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:20, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Yellow Dingo &#160; (talk)  06:44, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * keep minor writer, sort of in the Kilgore Trout category. I did a little sourcing.  I think there is enough in this career to pass the notability bar.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:12, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:32, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:25, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete -- minor writer of marginal notability. Sourcing in the article is weak, with "liverjournal" and the like. I do not see it improving substantially to satisfy GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:49, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * sources He had 5 seconds of fame across the Anglosphere this past spring, that enabled me to source his day job.  His publisher is real, and could probably support an article.  I pared the article down to the (sourced) bones.  Also note that SF Site has covered and reviewed him extensively, this material - features, reviews and best-of lists -  can be added to the article.  I regard coverage of relatively minor  WP:CREATIVE careers (when they can be sourced) as one of the most useful aspects of Wikipedia.   E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:39, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: there's still a citation to stevenwedel.com - ? K.e.coffman (talk) 19:45, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I figured the guy was reliable for the name of the school he teaches in/I just got lazy.(pick you favorite explanation). You are correct.  I just sourced it ti ABC News, the source I added earlier.  It is in all the news stories that ONEEVENT thing that hit the news this spring.  I'm trying to avoid over stuffing this page by oversourcing page, overdoing that news flurry.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:16, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, still not convincing. The subject is an English teacher who writes books. "Movie rights sold to Blackridge Entertainment" appears trivial for an encyclopedia; this is a non-notable firm (no article) and I'm sure many buy rights and never make movies. RS coverage is just not there to meet GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:31, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final Relist -- Dane 2007  talk 22:31, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Sorry, but this fails GNG by a wide margin. (That facebook post is almost a quote and something which faded from view without any effects). I'm not convinced that the subject passes WP:AUTHOR. There is no evidence that the books written are significant - significant books actually receive secondary coverage. This is a minor writer who is getting some reviews for his book because he stays in the West and I feel keeping this article would be a pretty good example of WP:SYSTEMICBIAS. In other countries, local sources are often considered unreliable or sometimes do not exist. The way to solve systemic bias is to have objective standards. We don't keep minor writers from other countries and neither should we keep those from the West. In addition, the article is clearly being used for promotion. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:29, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane 2007  talk 22:31, 12 August 2016 (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.