Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baye McNeil

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. Secret ^account 18:49, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Baye_McNeil

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This entry seems to be sourced mainly from self-published sources (published by the subject himself), his blog, or interviews with the subject concerning his self published books.

There are few or no reliable sources connected to this entry.

It also has problems with notability, seeing as it has a few secondary references, all of which are over a year old (2013 being the most recent). Almost all the secondary sources are interviews with the subject. Some of them are the same book review or article published in various places.

I've searched Google books and news, but only the subjects self-published books were returned.

This guy is basically a blogger and part time news paper columnist. This is not notable.

I believe it should be considered for deletion. nagoyablue (talk) 08:56, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 November 21. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 09:13, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find anything to suggest that McNeil is ultimately notable per Wikipedia's guidelines. Most of the sources I've found are ones that fall just short of being reliable sources (like this one), as they initially appear usable but are ultimately SPS. The cover blurbs are just that- cover blurbs, short and positive 1-2 sentence statements that the publisher specifically asks for from various authors or notable persons. They've never been usable for notability purposes, especially since in many instances the quoted people are either friends/acquaintances of the author or they're people who publish with the same company. As far as his work being in several publications, that isn't a qualification for notability in and of itself. Being widely published may make it more likely that someone will gain coverage, but it's not a guarantee. Unless there are scads of coverage for him in a foreign language, I just can't see where he's ultimately notable enough for an article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:07, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article was submitted to articles for creation desk, then approved, then published. Subject is notable and sources are good…Tokyogirl79, you're wrong about cover blurbs. I specifically asked Wikipedia articles for creation help desk whether cover blurbs are OK as sources, and was told, "YES" they are. (If I hadn't been told this, I wouldn't have noted them as references.)…I made edits to article and comments on its talk page (Talk:Baye McNeil}. Nagoyabllue responded not by commenting on talk page, but by proposing article for deletion. Why?...Minusminority (talk) 21:30, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Cover blurbs are not independent reliable sources -- they are directly selected and published by the author and/or publisher. Yes, they are inherently biased. This is not a matter of someone issuing a ruling and establishing precedence. Someone might have told you something and we might or might not agree with them. Either way, the WP:CONSENSUS will be the only decision that matters. The editor proposed deletion because they felt the subject is not notable. Having only self-published works, McNeil is very unlikely to pass WP:AUTHOR. That leaves the general notability guideline (GNG). To pass GNG, McNeil would need to have "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cover blurbs and interviews are not independent of the subject. Of the few sources left after that, I don't immediately see any that are "reliable". - SummerPhD (talk) 23:04, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I thought the article had enough reliable sources in 2013 and I still think it does. Tho I cede the above editors' points about cover blurbs. As for the other references, I seldom have the stomach to dig in for a protracted war over our notability criteria, or our reliable source criteria for web resources. But I will note that while this article has seen a great deal of heated conflict between the article creator and the editor who posted this RfD, that conflict didn't seem to have anything to do with the notability of the subject until very recently. What changed? Cheers, - J-Mo ^{Talk to Me} _{Email Me} 00:09, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply.I was unhappy with this entry for various reasons, but until I recently looked at the case for deleting another entry (unconnected to this), I was unaware of the rules of notability and reliable sources. Looking at it again with these in mind, I could understand why I felt unhappy with the entry. I also felt, that within these guidelines, this entry should be deleted. If people can find reliable sources that prove this person to be notable, I'm happy for it stay, of course. But I couldn't find any despite looking.nagoyablue (talk) 23:45, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator and Tokyogirl79. WP:AFC is not a prefect process and not all its reviewers demonstrate the level of skill and knowledge generally required by that project. At best, AfC performs no better than NPP which is also inherently flawed. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:50, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I had a look around and while he has written several pieces for The Japan Times, that cannot count towards notability of himself. The other coverage I found was either press releases (eg: [1]) or self-published (eg: [2], [3]). This Tokyo Weekender piece looks to be the best source I found, but that's about it. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:44, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Having this article up for deletion seems like a case of changing the rules in the middle of the game. IF that is the case (and depending on outcome of this debate) I would like to humbly suggest Wikipedia work on consistency...As I have noted previously on this AfD page or on the talk page for the article, I went through Articles for Creation before the article was published (by someone else, not me). The submission passed the eyes of at least two or three editors who work on AfC…Users have mentioned cover blurbs several times. As I have noted previously (on this page and the talk page), I confirmed with an editor at AfC (in a chat) that cover blurbs were OK to note as sources. If cover blurbs are not OK as sources, why was I told they were before article was approved for publication?...Also, the Kam Williams' sources, at least one of The Japan Times' sources and the Tokyo Weekender source are not written by subject of article, nor generated by him. Why aren't they considered good sources by some who are debating article's merits on this page (when they were considered good by other editors, at AfC)? …User Kudpung กุดผึ้ง states, "At best, AfC performs no better than NPP which is also inherently flawed." If that is the case, I would like to know why these processes exist. (AfC = Articles for Creation; NPP = New Pages Patrol.) Replies from other editors on this would be appreciated. Thank you. Minusminority (talk) 12:07, 28 November 2014 (UTC) Minusminority (talk) 11:57, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Imperfect processes exist because no system is perfect. In this particular case, the problem traces to the fact that Wikipedia is not a strict hierarchy. With very few exceptions, no one person can authoritatively answer any question about what is or is not within our guidelines. Consensus is, in most cases, the one and final arbiter. Even then, consensus can change. In a bureaucracy, ever higher levels of authority can give ever more authoritative answers (Department of Motor Vehicles < state courts < federal courts < Supreme Court < Constitution). If the DMV says something, it is correct... unless a higher level overrides it. Wikipedia does not work this way. Every article is created and edited with the expectation that it must meet our policies and guidelines. If, at any time, an editor believes that the creation, deletion or content of an article is not in line with those policies and guidelines, they may attempt to address that issue in various ways. In this particular case, an editor feels the subject of the article is not notable. If the consensus supports that opinion, the article will be deleted. If any editor later believes that the decision was incorrect, the subject has become more notable or our guidelines change, that editor can work to form a new consensus and restore the article. A consensus stands until a new consensus changes it. The opinion at AfC (contested, as it is, on the article's talk page) is the current consensus. The apparent consensus here (to delete the article) will be the new consensus. If things change at some point in the future, the closure of this discussion will provide links to the process to recreate the article. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:50, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Cover blurbs are sources for establishing claims or facts and may therefore be used within an article. They are not sources for establishing notability. Not all your sources need to establish notability in the same way as not all the times you kick a ball it needs to end up in the net - but you won't win the match if you don't score at least one goal. New Pages Patrol is a process that exists to play Whac-A-Mole; its main purpose is keeping obvious spam, promotion, and nonsense off Wikipedia. Articles for Creation mostly, so far as I can tell, makes sure that people have beta readers before putting articles up. (These are of course personal opinions rather than authoritative). Neonchameleon (talk) 17:58, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems to me that the real question here is whether the book reviews contribute to the notability of the author. I am not aware of any guideline saying otherwise, in which case there are certainly multiple RSs covering this individual. Vanamonde93 (talk) 10:46, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.