Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fledgling Jason Steed (2nd nomination)

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 \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 23:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fledgling Jason Steed

Recreation of previously deleted article. Major problems with sourcing (majority are forum posts, blogs, or not found at claimed links). Notablity of book and author is still questionable. MikeWazowski (talk) 13:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"delete" fails WP:Author and WP:Book - the only decent references are those to the person who the fictional character is based upon and he already has his own article. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per sourcing problems -- and I don't mean the problems with the ones in the article, I mean the inability to find significant coverage out there. Teen Vogue might be an acceptable ref, but given previous problems with references that can't be verified, I'd want someone independent to cross-check.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: single author has now "blanked" article (actually, changed it back into the redir it used to be). Speedy close the AfD, or let it run to establish consensus?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Now that the publishing deal has been announced by Publishers MarketPlace it is likely that the book will be mentioned in more 'Wikipedia reliable' publications over the next few days/weeks. Then, perhaps, I can recreate the article without causing any problems. (Teen Vogue - edition end of April, beginning of May. The same Malia Obama details also mentioned on a US show called Teen Zone apparently at beginning of May - but I'm in the UK, so don't know this programme.) I do, however, feel that SarekOfVulcan is slightly 'over the top' in his determination to delete this article. His edit summary of "Exterminate" says it all really. --Beehold (talk) 14:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, had a Doctor Who moment there. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I would not object to recreation if it happens that reliable sources are later found. Don't see that a redirect to Raymond Steed makes sense, because until the book Fledgling Jason Steed becomes notable (if it ever does) there is no reason to mention that novel at all in the Raymond Steed article. A redirect from the name of a book to the name of a real person is puzzling. (It's not an obvious choice for a redirect like going from the name of a book to the name of its author). Since this AfD has been mentioned at WP:ANI I recommend that the deletion debate be allowed to run for the full length of time, and not speedy closed. EdJohnston (talk) 15:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seems a CSD:G4 to me. The first deletion wasn't just as self published, it was because of lack of reliable sourcing to establish notability. That same lack of reliable sourceing exists today. I liked the one about it being reported that something was said in teen vogue. No cite to that report, but instead an apparent cite vaguely pointing to teen vogue. Either it was said in teen vogue in which case a real citation can be made, or it wasn't, we shouldn't be basing articles on vague unsourced claims that something was said in a real source --82.7.40.7 (talk) 21:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have been informed of the proposed deletion of this page on my talk page, presumably because I created the page originally as a redirect to an article I wrote - Raymond Steed. (As suggested at the last AFD for FJS). I actually voted to keep the original Fledgling Jason Steed book article at that AFD, but I refuse to take part in this discussion as I no longer have any faith in Wikipedia's administrators to make fair, just or independent decisions.-- Myosotis Scorpioides 17:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

whoever closes this will be much more likely to decide in a fair manner if you present an argument for keeping the article. DGG (talk) 20:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete with no prejudice towards recreation in the future. The sourcing problems are tremendous and the notability is questionable currently. That being said, these books could easily become notable in the future with the publishing deal apparently in place. AniMate^draw 22:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) 05:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC) "[reply]

Delete. Lack of reliable sources. Dawn Bard (talk) 11:55, 11 June 2009 (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.