Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wesley King


 * 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. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 23:37, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Wesley King

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Advertorially toned WP:AUTOBIO (creator = Westk14) of a writer, with no strong claim of notability per WP:NAUTHOR and no strong reliable source coverage. This is based entirely on primary sources, except for one brief blurb about one of his books getting optioned for a television adaptation that never materialized and one Q&A interview in which he's talking about himself -- both of which would be fine for verifying additional facts if his notability had already been properly demonstrated by stronger sources, but neither of which can bring a WP:GNG pass by themselves as the only non-primary sources in an article. And even if he can be better sourced than this, our conflict of interest rules do not permit him to write the article himself, or to remove the autobio and advert and primary sourcing maintenance tags himself (as he did) without actually addressing the advertorialism or the sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 22:51, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

This is all true. Every part. Alas, I was told by a peer that most authors create a page for themselves and that was I was behind the times. Impressionable as I was, I did a quick job of it, but with an apparent lack of know-how and it seems now notability outside of my own crippling delusions of grandeur. I thought perhaps I had solved the issues when deleting said maintenance tags, though it appears I was wrong...probably because I had no idea what I was doing. Bearcat has caught me in a web of lies. In my meager defense, that television adaptation really is a thing, but I suppose that's besides the point. I did also actually publish those award-winning books, but to be honest, at least one of them was crap. Who knows...maybe all of them. I submit myself to Wikipedia's ruling council and move to strike my own article until I become famous enough to get one the honest way or wither back into comfortable obscurity. I don't think that was the self-promotional coup I was told after all. Anyway, as it seems that I can't fix the problems, let us delete this page and never speak of it again. As a last, lingering indication of my Wikipedia ineptitude, I have not added a single link to this paragraph. I was doomed from the beginning.

Fare well, Wikipedia. You spurned my affections, but one day I will make you love me again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.78.185 (talk) 23:42, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * For the record, awards don't become NAUTHOR-passing notability until media write content about the award presentation — if the only source you can provide for an award win is either your own PR or the award's own self-published website about itself, because media coverage about it is nonexistent, then the award isn't a notability claim. Bearcat (talk) 00:09, 15 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment The Red Maple Award does have a lot of web coverage - over 4 million hits on Google - and, for obvious reasons, it has high visibility with Ontario public libraries. One could pick other sources for this award such as Quill & Quire and the Canadian Children's Book Centre which are significant sources in their field. The "Forest of Reading" (to which the Red Maple Award belongs) even made the CBC news. And, of course, the Edgar Award is also a big thing in its field. I think that the main problems with this article are conflict of interest and bad choices for sourcing not necessarily notability. --Big_iron (talk) 04:42, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, the Google count is more like 350,000 - my bad - but still substantial. --Big_iron (talk) 12:36, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 23:49, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 23:49, 14 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete PROMO for writer who lacks sourcies, lacks credible claim to notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:56, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete – subject lacks in-depth coverage in reliable secondary sources. Citobun (talk) 14:08, 19 December 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.