Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Stephen Maitland-Lewis

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: delete. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 14:51, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Stephen Maitland-Lewis


This has been deleted from mainspace three times over the span of 11 years. Now it's been kicking around in draftspace for over a year, been declined four times, and just resubmitted for review again with no substantial improvement. Possibly a close enough paraphrase of http://www.maitland-lewis.com/about.html to justify WP:G12. Let's delete this and salt it in both main and draft spaces to avoid wasting more time on this in the future. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:09, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. A serious author with good reviews, and well promoted, but no independent coverage.  Delete per the clear result of the last AfD, Articles for deletion/Stephen Maitland-Lewis (3rd nomination).  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:21, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per the nom's suggestions. Legacypac (talk) 01:02, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
 * We have discussed sources at User_talk:SmokeyJoe. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:05, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. though this is not the place to discuss notability, his3 books are in almost no libraries and have almost no reviews. There is zero chance that this would ever result in an article.  DGG ( talk ) 05:05, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * DGG, and others, the draft author has been throwing sources at me on my talk page. Can you please comment on the following three, my choice of the three best for notability testing, and whether they contribute to demonstrating notability.
 * (1) http://www1.cuny.edu/mu/forum/2010/12/13/louis-armstrong-house-museum-names-author-and-armtrong-pen-pal-stephen-maitland-lewis-as-board-trustee/
 * (2) https://www.broadwayworld.com/article/Louis-Armstrong-House-to-Honor-Dick-Cavett-Stephen-Maitland-Lewis-Andrew-P-Jackson-20141106
 * (3) http://freshfiction.com/review.php?id=45543
 * --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:22, 25 July 2018 (UTC)


 * 1 is the press release  of an organization making him an appointment to its board of trustees.  #2 is an annnoucement about that appointment. The information about him in them uses  such similar wording that they are presumably transcribed from his own statement about himself.   Reading them together with the article discloses that they seem to have made him a trustee because he financially sponsors their events.  The article calls him a full time author, but the information given makes it look like its essentially a hobby & that he is or was professional an investment banker. The books are self-published, and the publishers award is worthless.
 * 3 is a reader review, and useless, as are the other reviews.
 * As for WP, G11 would seem to apply.  DGG ( talk ) 00:41, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks DGG.  I agree.  #1 and #3 are clearly excluded, non-independent, and non-reliable, respectively.  #3 was the only review that actually made comments about the author, but a user-review is not good enough.  #2 is a maybe, except I think that it is straight repeating non-independently published material, and thus is not providing independent secondary source source information.  The draft must be deleted, and I weakly support wp:salting.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:06, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * To give the draft author some encouragement to continue to try to improve Wikipedia on topics related to his interests, I suggest that look at improving the Louis Armstrong House article.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:06, 25 July 2018 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.