Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jon Turley

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 of the debate was no consensus. W.marsh 01:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Turley

Non-notable author biography... Adolphus79 23:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article now includes the book's ISBN and other details. I think that he is notable as an English chidlren's writer. TruthbringerToronto 00:23, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly enough, actual British libraries don't seem to agree with that assessment. --Calton | Talk 09:01, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per TruthbringerToronto. Reasonable number of reviews and sales rank on amazon.co.uk. Tevildo 00:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. 683,736 is a reasonable sales rank? --Calton | Talk 09:01, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep published author with books of a reasonable following. Jammo (SM247) 00:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - just a note, per WP:BIO, Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work... the article makes no reference to any reviews or awards... that's all... if someone can show multiple reviews and awards, I'll gladly change my vote... - Adolphus79 00:48, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment From the book notability criteria - "...books with an ISBN-number and/or availability in a couple dozen of libraries and/or a Project Gutenberg type website, and with a notability above that of an average cookbook or programmers manual would qualify." His books are therefore officially notable; I think it would be perverse for him not to be, in that case. Although, this may just be a result of inconsistent notability standards. Tevildo 00:59, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: how did an ISBN become a criterion for notability? Anyone can buy one. - Nunh-huh 01:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

on that note, I clicked on those 2 ISBN numbers linked in the article... Google, nor Amazon, found any matches... and the only review listed at the moment is from a 14 year old who only gave the book 2 stars out of 5... - Adolphus79 01:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See here. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 18:28, June 25, 2006

"Amazon.co.uk Sales Rank: #755,612 in Books" - that didn't help prove notability any... - Adolphus79 19:20, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-serious comment. A lawyer would undoubtedly claim that the "multiple independent reviews" criterion in WP:BIO quite obviously only applies to _photographers_. But, fortunately, the policy pages don't have to comply with legal standards of drafting. :) Tevildo 01:04, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Serious comment I'm not saying this author is a hoax at all, but the idea that an ISBN number is sufficient proof of a book's notability is unacceptable as ISBN number registering and corresponding listing on Amazon.com has been used for hoaxes on Wikipedia in the past. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Brent_Henry_Waddington for an example Bwithh 05:28, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Less than a month old, has not been given sufficient time to develop. I tried to improve it, though. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 01:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Author lacks notability as a UK children's writer - zero coverage in national press. A Factiva multi-decade newspaper and magazine database search shows a total of 8 (eight) articles about this author have ever been printed in the UK press. Of these 8, all of them are in local not national newspapers, and only 3 are over 200 words in length. The most recent 3 articles are from March 2004 and are about the author reading to some kids at the same bookshop event. Bwithh 05:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This isn't Books in Print. A search on Worldcat reveals 5-7 libraries worldwide hold copies of his books -- and that includes the British Library. --Calton | Talk 09:01, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From National library:"In the United Kingdom the Legal Deposit Libraries Act 2003 restates the Copyright Act of 1911, that one copy of every book published there must be sent to the national library (The British Library); five other libraries (Bodleian Library at Oxford University, Cambridge University Library, National Library of Scotland, Library of Trinity College (Dublin) and the National Library of Wales)". So there is the possibility of one library apart from these 6 (which hold his books only as a part of a legal requirement to hold copies of every book) has copies of this author's books Bwithh 16:27, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The non-British Library holdings, in all fairness, are to a few London-area public libraries: one even had TWO copies of a book. --Calton | Talk 00:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Calton; I tried several OPACs without results. However, the Edinburgh Libraries catalogue found me a children's book by a J.T McQueen (A world full of monsters, Collins, 1986) long before the subject of this article is said to have been writing. Odd to say the least, unless J.T McQueen is a collective pen name like Luther Bissett. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per the Wikipedia creed "The sum of ALL human knowledge". This statement is NOT selective. TruthCrusader 14:20, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- - Actually, it is, meaning that you have, once again, mistaken an encyclopedia for WP:NOT#an indiscriminate collection of information (note that "indiscriminate" DOES mean "NOT selective") or the Yellow Pages. --Calton | Talk 00:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- LAUGH What is it with editors with "Truthwarrior"/"Truthgiver" type names? I'm sorry. Armageddon, lets bring it on. (anyway, that Jimbo Wales quote is actually against official Wikipedia policy) Bwithh 16:27, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not very picky about authors, but this guy seems very non-notable. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 01:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (sadly). I was initially for keeping, but am strongly persuaded by various arguments, but particularly Bwithh's Factiva research. --Dweller 08:55, 28 June 2006 (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.