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. Michig (talk) 06:07, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Sells

Scott Sells (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completely unreferenced WP:BLP, written and posted by the subject himself, of a person who might pass a notability guideline if substantive coverage were there, but who certainly doesn't get an automatic presumption of notability for anything listed here. (In addition, it bears noting that an anonymous IP recently blanked the entire article — leaving only the photograph and a few empty section headers — while claiming in their edit summary that they were "editing it for compliance". Which is, needless to say, just as problematic as the article itself.) I'm certainly willing to withdraw this if the sourcing can be beefed up, but as usual he is not entitled to keep a profile on Wikipedia to promote himself if RS coverage isn't there to support it. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 00:45, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that is why I said that I was willing to withdraw the nomination if the sourcing improved. But we don't keep every article about a writer just because you can point to commercial sites like Amazon or Barnes and Noble as proof that their books exist — we keep articles about writers only if you can point to reliable sources as proof that their writing has garnered coverage. (And by the same token, the mere fact that a person is a professor doesn't automatically get them past PROF in and of itself — you have to be able to cite reliable sources to prove that they've garnered media coverage of some kind for their academic work.) Bearcat (talk) 17:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Normally, a redirect should automatically be deleted if its target is deleted, and if the deleting editor misses it then it can be immediately speedied as a G8 ("redirect to a deleted page") by anybody who finds it afterward. So it's not necessary to explicitly include the redirect in the target page's AFD nomination, because if the main article gets deleted then the redirect's deletion automatically follows from that. Bearcat (talk) 17:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:23, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:23, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:23, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:23, 29 July 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.
Allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Scott_Sells
No tags for this post.