292:. When it comes to coverage that actually focuses on Croft, all we have are local sources. I always view those with suspicion since those don't always do the best fact checking when it comes to coverage, as it wouldn't behoove them to say something negative about something seemingly good that a native did. The Guardian article doesn't have Croft as the focus of the article, which is about self-publishing in general. As for the claims of selling well, that doesn't guarantee notability- it just makes it more likely that you'll get coverage. I was hoping to find more coverage due to the radio play, but there's nothing out there about it and it seems like it's one of many radio plays that get made and sink into obscurity.
273:. If DGG didn't already say that this was by a suspected sockpuppet and confirmed paid editor, I'd have suspected that this was a case of paid editing. I'll see what I can find, but offhand it doesn't look spectacular. Most of his coverage is local and therefore depreciated, since it's in their best interests to portray a local citizen in a more positive light in these circumstances. The Guardian link is good, but he's not the focus of the article.
209:; I don;t know who wrote the earlier versions, but they are also not salvageable, because there's no fundamental notable to be salvaged. The promotional manner of the writing is what you;d expect--it contains what the subject wants to say about himself. If I am wrong, and he actually is notable, the article would still have to be rewritten entirely, by someone who knows and respects our standards.
201:
as being in a single library. He's a self-published author, and claims to be notable as such, and also claims to be notable for showing that a self published author can be notable. It's true that a very few have been. It's not true that he's one of them.
235:- what a horrible mess. The "sources" include blogs, user profiles (created by the subject) and the barest of passing mentions. With those removed we have a series of articles (from reliable sources) but most of those are coverage
243:
the subject. Lots of quotes from him, not a lot about him. There's a feint chance the subject might be notable but the article is a horrific jumble of promo-spam and dishonest referencing masquerading as solid,
166:
269:: I've cleaned the article up and removed all of the blatantly unusable sources. Everything I removed was either an unusable blog, a primary source, or a merchant link. The original version can be seen
119:
311:. Almost no sign of notability, the Guardian mention being useful but slight. The sockpuppetry and paid editing are distasteful aspects; presumably other articles such as
160:
353:
333:
396:-- Unless self-published works have achieved significant sales they are NN. It follws that their author is also NN (unless for other reasons).
126:
197:
I don't think he's a notable author. He fails the basic test that his works are listed by library databases. Only one is, and it lists
17:
92:
87:
96:
181:
206:
148:
79:
424:
40:
401:
320:
142:
420:
296:
277:
254:
57:
36:
138:
405:
388:
365:
345:
324:
303:
284:
261:
220:
61:
383:
312:
174:
188:
397:
316:
231:
361:
341:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
419:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
293:
274:
249:
53:
377:
83:
154:
216:
357:
337:
113:
245:
75:
67:
205:
The current version of the article was written or revised entirely by a
211:
239:
the subject (of the self-publishing industry) rather than coverage
413:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
270:
109:
105:
101:
173:
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
427:). No further edits should be made to this page.
315:are similar (many refs of doubtful quality).
187:
8:
354:list of Authors-related deletion discussions
352:Note: This debate has been included in the
334:list of England-related deletion discussions
332:Note: This debate has been included in the
351:
331:
7:
24:
207:known paid sock-puppetting editor
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
406:13:25, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
389:18:33, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
366:15:49, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
346:15:49, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
325:13:35, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
304:10:37, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
285:10:27, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
262:05:18, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
221:04:17, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
62:01:23, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
444:
376:- fails all our tests. --
416:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
199:To Close for Comfort
313:Danielle Nierenberg
48:The result was
368:
348:
435:
418:
386:
380:
300:
281:
258:
192:
191:
177:
129:
117:
99:
34:
443:
442:
438:
437:
436:
434:
433:
432:
431:
425:deletion review
414:
384:
378:
298:
279:
256:
134:
125:
90:
74:
71:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
441:
439:
430:
429:
409:
408:
391:
370:
369:
349:
328:
327:
306:
287:
264:
195:
194:
131:
70:
65:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
440:
428:
426:
422:
417:
411:
410:
407:
403:
399:
398:Peterkingiron
395:
392:
390:
387:
381:
375:
372:
371:
367:
363:
359:
355:
350:
347:
343:
339:
335:
330:
329:
326:
322:
318:
317:Chiswick Chap
314:
310:
307:
305:
302:
301:
295:
291:
288:
286:
283:
282:
276:
272:
268:
265:
263:
260:
259:
253:
252:
247:
242:
238:
234:
233:
228:
225:
224:
223:
222:
218:
214:
213:
208:
203:
200:
190:
186:
183:
180:
176:
172:
168:
165:
162:
159:
156:
153:
150:
147:
144:
140:
137:
136:Find sources:
132:
128:
124:
121:
115:
111:
107:
103:
98:
94:
89:
85:
81:
77:
73:
72:
69:
66:
64:
63:
59:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
415:
412:
393:
373:
308:
297:
289:
278:
266:
255:
250:
240:
236:
230:
226:
210:
204:
198:
196:
184:
178:
170:
163:
157:
151:
145:
135:
122:
49:
47:
31:
28:
379:Orange Mike
294:Tokyogirl79
275:Tokyogirl79
232:WP:BLOWITUP
161:free images
54:Mark Arsten
76:Adam Croft
68:Adam Croft
421:talk page
358:• Gene93k
338:• Gene93k
248:content.
246:verfiable
37:talk page
423:or in a
251:Stalwart
120:View log
39:or in a
299:(｡◕‿◕｡)
280:(｡◕‿◕｡)
267:Comment
167:WP refs
155:scholar
93:protect
88:history
394:Delete
374:Delete
309:Delete
290:Delete
227:Delete
139:Google
97:delete
50:delete
217:talk
182:JSTOR
143:books
127:Stats
114:views
106:watch
102:links
16:<
402:talk
385:Talk
362:talk
342:talk
321:talk
271:here
175:FENS
149:news
110:logs
84:talk
80:edit
58:talk
257:111
212:DGG
189:TWL
118:– (
404:)
382:|
364:)
356:.
344:)
336:.
323:)
241:of
237:by
229:/
219:)
169:)
112:|
108:|
104:|
100:|
95:|
91:|
86:|
82:|
60:)
52:.
400:(
360:(
340:(
319:(
215:(
193:)
185:·
179:·
171:·
164:·
158:·
152:·
146:·
141:(
133:(
130:)
123:·
116:)
78:(
56:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.