Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jon Acuff (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. ✗plicit 09:20, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Acuff

[edit]
AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails WP:NAUTHOR. The sources are not reliable. Kaihsnual (talk) 17:52, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Plutonical, I haven’t taken a look but something you said caught my attention, this: “Are you sure you looked for reliable sources regarding the article before nominating?”, I take it that is supposed to be a rhetorical question right? If not, then I believe the right discussion would have been to explain to the nominator how the subject of this discussion meets WP:NAUTHOR. Having said it appears the article has been deleted in the past although (10 years ago), I think I should have a look then cast a !vote. Celestina007 (talk) 19:49, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think they were asking if a WP:BEFORE search was done. – The Grid (talk) 19:58, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@The Grid, yes, Probably, to be honest I did a private “before search” & I honestly can’t even blame the nominator, honestly except you know what and where to look for, anyone would erroneously nominate this for deletion. Celestina007 (talk) 20:29, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — I do not blame the nominator for nominating this, first it is a blatant ADMASQ (I’m going to remove utterly every single WP:LARD this article is riddled with) secondly it has just two sources with one being a WP:QS, so i definitely understand that the nom felt justified in nominating this, Infact a WP:BEFORE brings back results in predominantly self published and user generated sources. This are one of the few instances in which an individual who appears not to be notable becomes “notable” because of an SNG. In this case an argument that #3 of WP:NAUTHOR is satisfied can be made. As aforementioned I’m going to remove all the promotional material in that article no matter how minute or insignificant. Celestina007 (talk) 20:11, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13(talk) 20:53, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - pinging prior participants Kaihsnual, Plutonical, The Grid, and Celestina007 to let them know that this was closed as a keep but I asked the closer to relist it so I could !vote delete. Reasons:
    • The Forbes contributor source is not an RS per WP:FORBESCON (discussed above)
    • Relevant (magazine) is not an RS. (That it's not listed at WP:RSP doesn't mean that it is, or is not, an RS.) It's not scholarship or journalism, but a religious advocacy organization. I cannot find a masthead or evidence of a professional journalism staff or editorial oversight. The website solicits contributions and I suspect it may be primarily contributor-written. The podcast hosts do not appear to be subject matter experts or have other relevant expertise (they're not professional book reviewers or biographers or journalists or scholars, as far as I can tell). Finally, I don't see where in this 75-minute podcast it provides WP:SIGCOV of the article subject and would ask for timestamps to support that argument.
    • I don't think the subject meets WP:NAUTHOR #3. Although he has published several books that have made the US bestseller lists (no small feat, for sure), I don't think that having bestselling books, alone, constitutes " a significant or well-known work or collective body of work". NAUTHOR #3 also requires that "such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews", which I don't think is met here. I cannot find any critical reviews of his books in RS (e.g., he has a NYT bestseller, but doesn't appear to have been reviewed by NYT). Google Scholar shows little or no RS citing any of the subject's books. Popularity, alone, doesn't constitute wiki-notability in my view.
    • Most importantly, I can find no RS from which we could write an article about this subject. Because Wikipedia summarizes sources, a Wikipedia biography should be a summary of RS biographies. Wikipedia should never be the first place to publish a biography about anyone. Without any RS biographies, or any RS SIGCOV, there is no way we can write an article that complies with WP:V and WP:BLP.
    • Thanks to everyone for indulging me in taking a second look at this one. Levivich 16:59, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We can keep it if relevant sources are added since he's published a few books so I am sure he must have got some coverage. Mathieu Vouillamoz (talk) 15:18, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TheAafi, hello mate, it is somewhat of a subsection of #3NAU see “or of multiple independent [periodical] articles or [reviews]”. I personally do not intend to dwell too much on this AFD. Celestina007 (talk) 11:15, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 18:43, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom and NAUTHOR. I could find only one (alleged) review. Amazon shows an Associated Press review of Do Over, but that's second-hand, and it's only one. Plus I can't find much about the man himself. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:48, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails the requirements of WP:ANYBIO / WP:NAUTHOR. Dan arndt (talk) 03:28, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - After much consideration the brilliant Levivich has changed my stance on this. Furthermore per comments by both my friend Dan ardnt & Plutonical all of which have convinced me that this isn’t notable at the moment. I intend to shy away from biographies on authors as their threshold for notability seems rather low and bother line difficult to ascertain, I have witnessed some articles on authors and just for the sheer fact that their works have been reviewed & just like that, boom! the author is deemed notable, but as pointed out by Levivich above “multiple independent periodical articles or reviews,?which I don't think is met here. I cannot find any critical reviews of his books” I believe this at this juncture. Although I’d like to correct something, “a single book” which has received sufficient critical reviews is enough to warrant an article for the author on mainspace. From WP:nauthor it expressly states “The person has created or played a major role in co-creating [a significant or well-known work” So yes, as aforementioned just one book written can warrant an article on the author if the named criteria above is met. Having said, I’d like to appreciate the diligence of Levivich. Celestina007 (talk) 20:44, 28 November 2021 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jon_Acuff_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1058078556"