Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Wootton


 * 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:18, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Tom Wootton

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Subject appears to be non-notable. Three articles were created in close succession: Tom Wootton, Bipolar Advantage and The Bipolar Advantage that have questionable notability. EagerToddler39 (talk) 23:49, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - There are 500 books which mention "Bipolar Advantage" and "Wootton". Psychology Today - a magazine  founded in 1967, Psych Central - the internet’s largest and oldest independent mental health social network have clearly decided that these article subjects are notable. note the Bipolar Advantage article with the most sources.
 * WP:BEFORE: "If there are verifiability, notability or other sourcing concerns, take reasonable steps to search for reliable sources...The minimum search expected is a Google Books search and a Google News archive search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects. Such searches should in most cases take only a minute or two to perform." Was this done? Igottheconch (talk) 01:12, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - "Psych Central - the internet’s largest and oldest independent mental health social network"??? I've read that article that you've also recently created with the three I PRODed earlier. There are no sources that attest to the claims about Psych Central. Pscyh Central cannot, therefore, be used to support a notability claim. In addition Psych Central and The Bipolar Advantage seem to have some connection according to one of your sources: "The Biploar Advantage blog is hosted by PsychCentral". From the searches I've done for reliable sources I have not being able to find adequate references that attest to Wootton's notability. If you are contesting this nomination then I recommend you improve the article with the required sources. Right now the article depends on primary sources which are not enough to establish notability. EagerToddler39 (talk) 03:10, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Also 37 Google scholar results for Wooton. Igottheconch (talk) 05:33, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Just looking at the first 20 out of the 37:
 * 3 are by Tom Wootton.
 * 8 are about geology, so I'm assuming that a different person named Tom Wootton is involved.
 * 1 is about fox terriers, so ....
 * 2 are about proceedings of the Lutin Borough Council, so ....
 * 1 is about a patent for soldering irons, so ....
 * 1 leads to a bibliographic record for J.R.R. Tolkien that actually has no mention of anyone named Wootton.
 * 1 is a list of the books possessed by some library.
 * 2 are self-published, one of which is by someone who identifies himself as a friend of Tom Wootten, who does no more than list his books and plug his website.
 * Finally, just 1 is a citation of something Wootton wrote in a work associated with a university&#8212;which doesn't qualify as significant coverage of Wootten. That work does say something about him: "This is the way I would look at what needs to be done, both in a person’s own self-understanding of what it means to have bipolar disorder, as Tom Wootton has recent written about ....", quoting him but not telling us anything about him.
 * Extrapolating from this data, I'm assuming the remaining 17 will yield similar results: a failure to find significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:29, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete&mdash;He is the author of self-published books that have minimal coverage. Fails WP:AUTH, let alone WP:GNG.  I found exactly two newspaper articles about the guy that weren't merely announcements of his lectures.  One in the Sacramento Bee from 2009 and the other from the Davis Enterprise in 2008.  These are both partly interviews, partly book reviews, and partly press releases.  Both articles were timed to promote upcoming lectures.  This doesn't meet the minimal standard of "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews."&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:36, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:GOOGLEHITS is not a compelling argument to keep this article.  My own Google searches turn up nothing that's actually useful. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:32, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 16 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete He has written self-published books. He writes columns for the Huffington Post. But those things do not give him notability. What would give him notability is other, independent sources writing ABOUT him, and as far as I could find that has not happened, so he does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability. --MelanieN (talk) 22:48, 21 January 2014 (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.