Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack Tate (author)

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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:27, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Tate (author)

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

Reliable sources aren't available to demonstrate the notability of this dude or his print-on-demand books. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:42, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nominator.--Mishae (talk) 03:44, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No evidence of notability, and promotional claims that a book is selling well on Amazon are meaningless. 2602:302:D88:E9B9:A53E:478:C58B:2E69 (talk) 03:45, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable sources. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:16, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. There's just nothing to show that this author is ultimately notable enough to have an article. The thing about selling on Amazon is that this is something that is so easily manipulated (especially since Amazon can have so many subcategories that a handful of sales will make a huge difference) and so difficult to verify (since these rankings are continually changing with each sale, there is really never any permanent record of this anywhere on the site), Amazon rankings will not be used to show notability. Unless they change something in the future it's unlikely that this will ever become something that will give notability on that basis alone. Selling well can make it more likely that there will be coverage, but it's not a guarantee and I can't find enough coverage to warrant a keep. Since this was quickly re-created after it was A7'd on the 23rd, this may need to be salted. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:28, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know that this could qualify for an A7 and even a G11 (the EL section and several portions of the article are fairly spammy), but this should go through a full AfD since this will help prevent re-creation before he passes notability guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:31, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence found to indicate that the subject meets any WP:AUTHOR or broader WP:BASIC notability criteria. AllyD (talk) 07:13, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:36, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 30 April 2015 (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.