Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stick Man


 * 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. All established editors agree that the book is not notable enough for an article.  Sandstein  07:23, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Stick Man

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Self-published novel of suspect notability. Article is almost entirely based on self-published or questionable sources and dead links. Possible self-promotion or conflict of interest, as main contributor only appears to edit articles related to Richard Rossi. MikeWazowski (talk) 22:16, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Promotional article. The book has not received significant attention. Many of the citation links are dead.   Will Beback    talk    23:08, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

WAKOWSKI'S MISREPRESENTATIONS This article should not be deleted. A quick perusal of the novels in the category "Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania" in fiction will show that "Stick Man" has been selling better and garnered more attention than most of the novels listed there. Although I cannot divulge my sources as a freelance reporter, I know that Richard Rossi is currently being interviewed for profiles in major news outlets about the success of the Stick Man book in publications that will soon exceed the need for additional source citations. If this article is deleted, it will only need to be re-added when the additional articles are released. Mike Wazowski has a bit of an ax to grind as he has a history of misrepresenting and maligning Mr. Rossi and articles related to his work. As an example, Assist News is an international news wire service that Wazowski fraudulently represents as a self-published source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.233.48.100 (talk) 21:35, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - No coverage in reliable sources about this self-published book. The cavalcade of references in the article are unreliable.  All the dead links are to World Book and News which allows anybody to submit a story / press release.  And it is unclear what editorial oversight is exercised in AssistNews, the only working link. -- Whpq (talk) 13:59, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Not finding any coverage of it in reliable sources. Qrsdogg (talk) 20:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - Opposition to proposed Deletion:
 * Comment - Future coverage which has yet to exist is not a reason for keeping this article. -- Whpq (talk) 02:35, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - Past media coverage of the author is notable, therefore the revelations in his book are a reason for keeping this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.183.42.25 (talk) 20:33, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Notability is not inherited. Your argument is not valid. MikeWazowski (talk) 20:48, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - There is no "past media coverage". The Assist News coverage is dubious as a reliable source, and World Book and News is not a reliable source.  So what I see for past coverage is somewhere between zero and one. -- Whpq (talk) 20:53, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


 *  Keep  As per Wikipedia past protocol, if the author of a book has received notable press, the book they write is considered more worthy of inclusion. The above editors are apparently ignorant of this exception to their spurious and biased arguments.  The article on Mr. Rossi himself has many media citations.  Also, because of the above editors bias against Mr. Rossi, they demand a higher standard of notability for his book than other novels.  Hundreds of novels are listed on Wikipedia without a single press citation.  As was mentioned earlier, the category "Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania in fiction" contains scores of novels of geographic interest to Pittsburgh like Rossi's, but many have much less notability.  Rossi's novel consistently and daily ranks higher in sales on Amazon and other outlets than most of the novels with articles on Wikipedia.  The above editors, do not apply a fair standard across the board and go after novels with far less media discussion.  Assist News is a global press wire service.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.233.48.100 (talk) 00:01, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply - Please see Notability (books), item 5. Richard Rossi is not such an author. -- Whpq (talk) 00:12, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Reply Respectfully, the above reference to item 5 is cited in a misleading way and out of context. Item 5 is called item 5 because it is the fifth in a series of digits, any one of which gives a book notability.  Rossi's work has to only fulfill ONE of those five points, not all five and is not required to fulfill number five specifically.  Stick Man is the most recent component of a series of several works of allegorical art by Rossi portraying his deconversion from fundamentalism which have received mainstream media attention and have been discussed in schools and include his two films and play about Aimee Semple McPherson, his stage version of Elmer Gantry, and his film Quest For Truth. A perusal of the postings of the above editors will show they have not proposed deletion of other novels with less notability.  The bias of the above users voting for delete reflects an uneven and arbitrary history.  Mr. Rossi and his work has been unfairly defamed and suggested for deletion, sometimes by former disgruntled followers and sometimes by a few who have an opinion against his work.  To delete this article would reveal a clear inconsistency because in the novel's categories, the vast majority of similar novels with Wikipedia articles do not have the same campaign for deletion mounted against them.  A Google search of "Stick Man Richard Rossi" yielded 380,000 results.  In the past, similar articles considered for deletion were kept for meeting a minimum requirement of only two Google hits.  To yield to this campaign, allows a few uneven posters to game the Wikipedia system unfairly.  This article should be kept and simply cleaned up in terms of dead links.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.183.42.25 (talk) 21:57, 2 June 2011 (UTC)  — 64.183.42.25 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Reply - The existence of other articles is irrelevant to this discussion. The book fails all five points of the inclusion criteria for books.  All of them.  -- Whpq (talk) 01:20, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - for the record, a Google search on the term "Stick Man Richard Rossi" only yields about 3,130 results, which then boils down to less than 50 unique returns. If you're going to quote statistics, especially easily checkable ones, you should try to actually present the true results. MikeWazowski (talk) 20:05, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Reply Mr. Rossi and Stick Man succeeds in meeting at least four of the five points, when only one is necessary to keep the article.  This begs the question as to objectivity when those proposing deletion single out Rossi and ignore many novel articles with less support.  Here's a small sampling of the voluminous internet support for Stick Man's meeting criteria:  Item 1 - Stick Man has been featured in news articles and reviews, see the following links:   Item 3 - Stick Man has been an important part of two religious movements. The deconversion of former fundamentalists, see this link as an example  and Christian universalism, see this link      Item #4 - Stick Man is on the reading list for high school and college study, see these two links
 * And lastly, Item 5 is the author's notability which is clear from the amount of media citations and references on the main article about Richard Rossi. Also, I respectfully request this reply not be deleted. The biased campaign to delete Stick Man by a few lacks neutrality.  Efforts to address the concerns regarding the article, and/or clean up the article of dead links have been sabotaged in the past by those seeking deletion of the article. I vote to Keep this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.79.202.210 (talk) 18:29, 3 June 2011 (UTC) — 76.79.202.210 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Reply - Let's look at the 5 criteria for books:
 * Significant coverage: Blogs don't count.  Self-published material doesn't count.  Coverage needs to come from reliable sources.  None of the sources put forward are reliable sources.
 * Major literary award: It hasn't won any major literary award.
 * Signficant contribution to a religious movement: The book is a novel, and has no demonstrated significant contribution to a religious movement.  And your links provide no such evidence.
 * Book is the subject of instruction in schools: Not demonstrated in any reliable sources.  The source you provide is a single blog where the poster recommends it be on a school reading list. There is no evidence it is actually on any school reading list, and in any case, being on a reading list is different from being the subject of study.
 * Historic signifcance of the author: Richard Rossi is not an historically significant writer.  If he were, I would expect to see literary scholarship devoted to discussing his body of work. -- Whpq (talk) 19:05, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Although Mike Wazowski's information on Stick Man and it's notability is flawed, even if the information he cites above is accurate, 3,130 Google results for Stick Man and 50 unique returns far exceeds most novels with Wikipedia articles in notability. By his concession of these underestimated numbers, there are still plenty of sources supporting Stick Man. Also, additionally supporting the notability of the novel's author, Richard Rossi's IMDB page lists over 20 credits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.79.202.210 (talk) 20:49, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You still apparently don't understand the concept that notability is not inherited - Rossi could have a thousand credits on the IMDB (as it is, most of them are uncredited or unnamed non-notable characters), it has no bearing on this article about the book. Also you're throwing around ideas about notability and other articles without offering any proof. There are NOT plenty of independent reliable sources demonstrating any notability for this book, no matter how much you wish otherwise. MikeWazowski (talk) 21:06, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - Mike Wazowski's misrepresentations continue, this not only defames Rossi and his work, but the Billy Crystal character named Mike Wazowski. Concerning Mr. Rossi's 24 Film/TV Acting credits, the following 12 are named characters, and in some cases leads: Birddog in Baseball's Last Hero, Ray Clark in Suing the Devil, Rich Stevens in Live Fast Die Young, David Hutton in Aimee Semple McPherson, Gavin in Judy, Officer Miles in Close to Home, Allen in Gilmore Girls, Jake in JAG, Officer Emerson in Pacific Blue, Larry in Jesus 2000, Attorney Cohen in The Practice, The Troubadour in Live At Graffitti's. (Source Richard Rossi's IMDB page.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.79.202.210 (talk) 19:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC) — 76.79.202.210 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment - Ad hominem attacks do nothing to advance your cause. MikeWazowski (talk) 06:32, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete This book has received zero news coverage according to Google News Archive. Google finds only self-referential sources. The book is self-published,  and self-published books are very rarely found to be notable. This book fails WP:BOOK in every way. While the author may be notable, the book is not, and the book is what we are discussing here. The chorus of single-purpose ISP accounts in this thread are not succeeding in making the book any more notable.  --MelanieN (talk) 04:48, 5 June 2011 (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.