Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trevor K Grant


 * 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 of the discussion was delete. Proto :: type  11:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Trevor K Grant
This author gets no Google hits, and his book titles get no Google hits either, which probably means they don't exist. The 'fansite' is under construction and has no contents. Probably hoax. DJ Clayworth 16:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * NB when deletion time comes there are two redirects that I created that should go as well DJ Clayworth


 * I can assure you Trevor *is* real, and is sitting here with me right now. the only reason he isn't typing is because he has a blister. (unsigned contribution from User:Geoff Panner)
 * Delete I can find no evidence that any of the novels listed in the article or the author in question actually exist. Perhaps the gentleman who made the comment above could update the article with some links which  verify the existence of such items. DrunkenSmurf 17:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Part Crystal, part Cruft ~ trialsanderrors 17:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The article clearly needs rewriting, for tone if nothing else. But the article cites no sources and I can find no sources of information about this purported author.  There is no need to employ our WP:BIO criteria.  Xe is outright unverifiable. Delete. Uncle G 17:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as nonnotable/possible hoax in absence of any verifiable sources. NawlinWiki 17:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Note article creator Geoff Panner changed Dlyons' vote below from "delete" to "keep." That by itself is enough of a reason to delete. NawlinWiki 19:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, no. Dlyons did really write that xyrself.  It was a typo, apparently. Uncle G 19:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You're both right - the first keep was my typo. When I corrected that, he then changed it.   Dl yo ns 493   Ta lk  19:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep Delete hope he didn't get the blister The Day the Earth Frazzled   Dl yo ns 493   Ta lk  18:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Please explain how you think that this article is verifiable. Uncle G 18:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Two seconds on Google.co.uk and up it came... and you can all keep up with whatever Trevor is up to here --Geoff Panner 19:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * A blog with one entry, created today? That's the evidence? Oh, and Google.co.uk doesn't know about it. Probably because it hasn't indexed it yet. DJ Clayworth 19:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not my fault if your Canadian computers can't read Google UK. Can someone please verify that DJ Clayworth is real please?--Geoff Panner 19:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Cut the crap please. I have better things to do. DJ Clayworth 19:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I honestly don't believe you have anything better to do Deej, and please don't swear at me.--Geoff Panner 19:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, google.com finds nothing, that blog you linked to only proves that it exists, and that he exists, doesn't make it notable, as per the rules. Also, don't think that it really helps your case when you insult people, and change their votes. PresN 20:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually the blogs were both created after this deletion process was started, so really they don't prove he even exists. DJ Clayworth 15:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. HumbleGod 23:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * As if the reasons already given weren't enough for deleting, I'd also agree with NawlinWiki; the author of that page has removed any question of good faith by vandalizing user pages and changing votes. HumbleGod 23:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Well 'funny'ness isn't it itself a deletion citeria is it, what matters is whether this is true not whether or not it's amusing (as opposed to pathetic), it occurs to me that the books are probably comedies, and the original poster structured the wikipedia entry in the same light. I can affirm Trevor K Grant is indeed a real person, he was in the year above me at Quarry Bank Comprehensive school, and was friends with Clive Barker. On the basis of acquaintance and because Trevor is notoriously IT-weak I have given him some of my flickr space to host the art from his books. While this is poor, it doesn't strike me as worse than many a self-published writers. I haven't actually seen any of the books themselves though. Simon Bucher-Jones
 * Strong Delete, possible hoax is being polite. Unverifiable, and author's behavior should probably close this out.  Kuru  talk  00:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete: it has to be a hoax. Lords of the Ninth Oval? No doubt the tale of a five-day battle won by Flintoff the Merciless. And I know ITV are hard up for ideas, but I'd rather watch 24 hours of Heartbeat than The Day the Earth Frazzled. --die Baumfabrik 06:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy and strong delete. Bad hoax — not even funny! — by a wannabe writer. --128.40.182.6 15:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Strong keep Although I've only joined today, I've been a Wiki fan for many years, and have joined to come along and Support Trevor. I am a *real* author too. Look me up, on Amazon go on, you know you want to :-) Trevor is an old friend, and a bit (I'm sure he won't mind me saying) Up Himself, but his books are real, I've read them - and although a little florrid in style they are in existence. Trevor has many fans. I know, I've been scared by many of the perspiring plump be-moled women who buy his books (for something more than thrills and chills I'll wager)! So Trev is real. Trev is cool. And trev is noteworthy. Please, please let him stay. Many thanks.--Paul Ebbs 12:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Response Sorry, we can't just take your word as to whether this person and his books are real. Can you post a verifiable source? NawlinWiki 12:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Does that count? I'm sorry I'm new to all this.--Paul Ebbs 13:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No, that doesn't count, because I looked at that website on the same day that this notice was published and it had no content, just an 'under construction' notice. So the entire website was put together since this deletion notice was started. Full marks for effort guys, but please go and do something constructive. DJ Clayworth 15:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * That's 10 unique Google hits, which are either the Wikipedia page in question or a few comments on blogs and message boards. That pretty well establishes lack of notability. NawlinWiki 13:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * without wanting to get prissy, (and my oh my, looking at some of the posts above, wiki community is certainly is *way* prissed-up LOL) I just did a random Jump and came up with this guy Markus KuhnI googled him...and he gets 14 unique hits (2 of which point to Wiki), which makes him 4 hits more notable than Trevor...what exactly is the cut off point, if Google is your criteria? Don't want to start a flame war, but if Dr Markus is allowed, why isn't Trevor K Grant? Just asking like.--Paul Ebbs 14:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * and don't get me started on Indiana State Road 7That gets 15 unique hits on Google - 8 of them point to Wiki and 7 point to Answers.com....please explain how a road that doesn't seem to exist *anywhere* except on the web, can stay, but Trevor who buys me drinks, laughs at my third nipple and who shares my love of early Yes, can't? All seems a little unfair to me...but then what do I know? :-)--Paul Ebbs 14:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Norton Sports F.C.A little more random jumping and we have A football team in kent who have Less google hits than Trev. Do I need to go on, or is someone going to answer me as to what the google criteria has to do with an article staying? ;-)--Paul Ebbs 19:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply on User talk:Paul Ebbs. DJ Clayworth 19:50, 12 July 2006 (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.