Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomm Quackenbush


 * 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. Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 09:53, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Thomm Quackenbush

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Unremarkable e-book author. No real indications of notability, no references from independent reliable sources. Google news search on "Thomm Quackenbush" shows zero results. Standard search on the same shows a lot of primary sources, social media, unreliable sources, or simple sales listings. No significant coverage or reviews found from prominent or independent reliable sources. MikeWazowski (talk) 22:58, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete - If this article is about an eBook author that does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject then it definitely meets the A7 CSD (Criteria for Speedy Deletion). So therefore, this article does not need to have an AfD discussion. Interlude 65  23:20, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't follow. How does it being an E-book de-signify. More and more authors are moving away from paper books, So I'll need you bring me up to speed. Dloh  cierekim  00:30, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * He actually has a paperback at amazon does that mean he has significance, a lower standard than notability? Dloh cierekim  00:33, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * To me, an author having an Amazon page disqualifies them from speedy deletion. At the same time, don't see him as meeting notability. Intrigued. I'll see how it plays out. Dloh cierekim  00:37, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. First off, having an Amazon page does not equate to notability. Anyone that has a book published can have an author page on Amazon. Why? Because they are the ones who set one up by providing Amazon with the information. If the authors themselves don't, the publisher does. Even the self-published authors who go through CreateSpace have the ability to set up their author pages. This would pretty much fall under the rounds of WP:PRIMARY at best and doesn't show notability in the slightest. It's the equivalent of the author having a page for themselves on Lulu. I can't stress enough that having an author page on any merchant website is not a sign of notability. It just means that they're more proactive than others are. Heck, even the infamous Gabrielle Chana has her own author's page and I know for certain she isn't signed on with any official agency. To impress how non-special having an author page is, I could publish something right now and create my own author page. It's absolutely no sign of notability. Now apart from that, there is no coverage of this author in any reliable sources. There's a handful of blog reviews but ultimately this author has zero notability and by all rights should've been speedied since again, having an author page on Amazon means absolutely nothing. I'm trying to not be bite-y, but this just isn't any sign of notability enough to warrant removing a speedy.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:35, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, publishing is not a sign of notability even if it's through an official publisher or not. (Some authors create their own small publishing houses rather than state outright that they're self-published.) You need reliable sources to show that the author or their books are notable, which just aren't out there.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:36, 26 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Reply to TokyogirlNo one said having an Amazon page equated to having notability. What was said was that being an E-book writer made one suitable for speedy deletion. I would say, once again, that the subject of an article having an Amazon page indicates significance in the article. A much lower standard that notability. I was curious as to why anyone would WP:CSD this article. A published writer article is more significant than such content as say, "My boyfriend is cute." A subject having sufficient significance to preclude speedy deletion is not necessarily notable. In fact, I see no evidence that the subject is notable and never said I did. Cheers,  Dloh  cierekim  12:25, 26 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete - The article does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the Thomm Quackenbush subject per A7 and no sufficient justification has been put forth by the non-admin who removed the speedy delete request. There is nothing in the article about Amazon and having an Amazon page does not show importance or significance of the Thomm Quackenbush subject per A7 even if that information were in the article. For the purpose of this AfD, does not meet WP:GNG. Delete. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 04:22, 31 August 2012 (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.