Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Hampton (author)


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 01:52, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Tim Hampton (author)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Self-published author; claims to notability don't meet WP:BIO guidelines, i.e., no significant in-depth third party reliable source coverage (most of the refs are press releases, etc). OhNo itsJamie Talk 17:33, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. I did a search and was unable to find any coverage in independent and reliable sources to show that this author is ultimately notable. I see plenty of WP:PRIMARY sources such as press releases, as well as posts in blogs and such that Wikipedia wouldn't consider usable as a RS, but nothing that would show notability for the author. As an FYI to whomever added it to the article, merchant sources such as Amazon are considered to be unusable to show notability. Even when it's for interviews or actual site reviews (written by someone who works for the site and put in a separate section from the regular reviews), such things are considered to be somewhat suspect because it's always in the best interest of the merchant to promote their authors/product in a way that would promote sales. By that same token, listings of the book at Alibris do not count towards notability either and general customer reviews are never usable as sources. I'm tempted to remove them from the article on principle, but this is almost guaranteed to get deleted unless miraculous RS come out of nowhere. I doubt that will happen, though. It's just sort of the reality of indie and self publishing that the books tend to go largely unnoticed as far as mainstream stuff goes.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   18:11, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I have actually followed this person via media for several years. His books are no longer in print and he isn't marketing anything. What makes him legitimate is the fact that he is a mental health worker who has had a hard life experience. Given the events that happened just a few days ago in Newtown Conn, as well as around the U.S. I think it will be benificial to leave his page up and not delete it. Wikipedia is full of idiot entertainers and athletes who bring noting to society but trash and negativity, but this man on the other hand brings light and positivity and HIS page is being considered for deletion?????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.76.134.30 (talk) 20:32, 17 December 2012 (UTC)  — 204.76.134.30 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment None of your arguments address the criteria for deletion, which is that that subject does not meet Wikipedia notability guidelines. OhNo itsJamie Talk 20:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, and how dare you imply that Tom Brady brings nothing to society but trash and negativity!? MisterUnit (talk) 18:28, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The thing about your argument is it's ultimately WP:ITSUSEFUL and WP:ILIKEIT, neither of which are arguments that will keep an article. I agree that there are a lot of things on Wikipedia that I personally dislike. Heck, I've even contributed towards some of them. However that doesn't mean that they didn't meet notability guidelines in some form or fashion or that they aren't contributing to Wikipedia in some fashion. The thing about people and things that meet notability guidelines but are considered "trash" is that they still impact our culture in some format, for better or for worse. We can't keep every article out there and Wikipedia was never supposed to be an encyclopedia that comments on everything under the sun. At some point we have to have limits as to what constitutes notability. This keeps a lot of blatantly non-notable persons and things off of the site, but it also impacts a lot of people, things, and situations that I'd otherwise love to write an article about. It's just the way things are and while you're free to argue for changes, it's unlikely that they would change enough to where this article would be kept. We keep articles because they meet notability guidelines, not because we "should".Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   12:20, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * comment: 204.76.134.30 appears to be a SPA account possibly related to the subject of the article and topics related. PeterWesco (talk) 00:18, 19 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2012 December 18.  Snotbot   t &bull; c &raquo;  03:55, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * DELETE - Fails WP:AUTHOR PeterWesco (talk) 00:17, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:31, 19 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete From google, these are the sources for him and they are not independent WP:RS like a major newspaper. Likely fails WP:AUTHOR at present unfortunately. --Artene50 (talk) 07:46, 25 December 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.