Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Pitts


 * 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 move to Draft:Tom Pitts. You can work on the draft indefinitely, and submit it to review when you think you are done with improvements. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  12:35, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Tom Pitts

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Advertorially toned WP:BLP of a writer and musician, who has no strong claim to passing either WP:NMUSIC or WP:AUTHOR and no strong reliable sourcing. Of the 11 footnotes here, seven of them are to blog posts on WordPress, Blogspot or Squarespace; another is an interview in a non-notable zine reduplicated as two separate footnotes; and one more is an unreliable fansite for another band the subject's band once opened for, which completely fails to actually mention the subject's band at all. And #11, literally the only source here that represents an acceptable media outlet for the purposes of Wikipedia referencing, is in this instance a Q&A interview in which the subject is speaking about himself, so it's not a notability-assisting source either. As always, neither writers nor musicians are automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, or because their existence can technically be referenced to blogs and zines -- they must be the subject of coverage in reliable media sources, which verifies that they've accomplished something that satisfies a notability criterion. Bearcat (talk) 22:55, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Update: Draftifying per discussion below also acceptable. Bearcat (talk) 18:52, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 23:11, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 23:11, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 23:11, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the initial feedback. Based on experience, I expected this as normal course. May I please ask for some forbearance while I shore up sourcing? I recognize that articles need to be rooted outside the blogosphere. In the interim, however, I'd like to submit for consideration that the plaudits Mr. Pitts has earned from notable authors who themselves have passed Wikipedia notability standards do go (in my view, at least) a good way toward establishing his own notability. Rory1262 (talk) 23:39, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I have taken some steps to reduce the "advertorial" tone that was mentioned. More can be done in this direction. Rory1262 (talk) 00:17, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Some further steps taken with tone and to reduce reliance on blog sources (duplicate citation removed). Rory1262 (talk) 00:35, 3 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete per nominator. 2001:569:7C0B:6100:E061:FE21:FC1B:CACD (talk) 03:17, 3 November 2017 (UTC)


 * May I please inquire as to the proposed time frame for deletion? I wish to conduct further research. I will also attest again that I am not the subject or a member of his family, nor have I ever met him. Thank you. Rory1262 (talk) 10:52, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Please also advise whether the following independent sources, both of which have provided reviews of the most recent work by Mr. Pitts, are considered reliable: http://www.nyjournalofbooks.com/about-us and http://www.thebigthrill.org/about-itw/ -- if so, I would seek to cite them in a non-advertorial way. Continued thanks. Rory1262 (talk) 14:18, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I have stripped this piece down to essentials, focusing on independent recognition and removing the personal/miscellaneous info. I believe the advertorial tone has been shed. Would you please take another look? Continued thanks. Rory1262 (talk) 15:58, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Jamesrichards12345, thanks for your note on the main article's talk page that you are now happy with this. Regards, Rory1262 (talk) 14:13, 6 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete some of the references suggest that his book American Static might be notable, but it doesn't currently have a Wikipedia article, but it's only one book and only trivial coverage of him. Doesn't meet WP:NAUTHOR; the Usual caveats apply. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 19:06, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Additional support brought in for a second book from a different independent source, and it also speaks more directly to the notion of notability. Rory1262 (talk) 22:22, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I found more searching for his other book than I was expecting. The current article has problems, but I think there's a good chance it will meet WP:NAUTHOR as a completed article.  I would suggest Move to Draft, possibly add back some of the biographical information that was removed, and go through the AfC process. Unfortunately, it may take several weeks before anybody responds there. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 22:38, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I am glad to hear about this constructive alternate route. If the piece can't be certified directly, AfC would be preferable to deletion. Thank you. Rory1262 (talk) 23:49, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support for a third work brought in. I look forward to more input and formation of consensus. Rory1262 (talk) 00:26, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Draftify per power.enwiki. L3X1 (distænt write)  04:24, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:20, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the relisting and consideration. Input on how to make this bio more fully realized remains welcome. Rory1262 (talk) 12:32, 11 November 2017 (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.