Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Reddish

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. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 02:08, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David Reddish

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

There is no reason tho think this author notable. His one published book so far is in a total of one library, according to WorldCat [1] .

The article has been here for a year; it has had 35 edits, about 1/3 of them by experienced editors here, who have fixed trivial details, but apparently never thought of looking at the actual notability.

See below for the afd on the one book. DGG ( talk ) 21:59, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:57, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. Sources offered are completely worthless. 'Nuff said. Msnicki (talk) 23:16, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a fairly non-notable person. None of the sources in the article are in places we'd consider to be RS and there's not any coverage out there in reliable sources. Despite the original editor's attempt to spin doctor and puff up the accomplishments, this person is decidedly non-notable. It might be speedyable, although the wording here is written in such a manner that at first glance someone might decline it. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:04, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, no he didn't write it himself, I did! I was a fan of his essays when we were both in college and he ran a now-defunct message board under the Froggie19Dude handle. I picked it up when he abandoned it for more "legit" writings.Froggie19Dude (talk) 00:19, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Completely implausible. I simply don't believe you. Msnicki (talk) 18:51, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reddish released two books, including one earlier this month. I went in and edited to conform to neutrality policy and formatting. Reliable sources are here:[2], and here [3]Froggie19Dude (talk) 03:34, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, others might accept them but I'm not buying these as reliable independent secondary sources. The daily-journal.com article is basically an interview, which makes it WP:PRIMARY. From WP:SECONDARY, "A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources." The daily-journal.com article contains none of this secondary thinking. And the advocate.com article offers basically one sentence, the very essence of a trivial mention. Msnicki (talk) 06:00, 14 July 2014 (UTC
In that case, why aren't the reviews of his novel, some of which are found here [4], here [5] or appearances as a featured guest here [6] or a link on his publisher's website here [7] considered secondary? Also, this may fall into gray area between Primary & Secondary source, but this link: [8] includes a large portion of independent review. He's a minor author, but a notworthy one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Froggie19Dude (talk • contribs) 16:48, 15 July 2014‎
There are two problems with your argument. First, sources offered in support of notability need to clear the hurdle as reliable, independent and secondary. The sources you're offering don't. We do not accept blog sites like guerrillabookworm.com, pinkisthenewblog.com and bent-con.org as reliable because they lack the necessary reputation for fact-checking and editorial control. The digitalfabulists.com and the gay.net sources are unhelpful because they're WP:PRIMARY, the former having been written by the subject himself and the latter being an interview with the subject, meaning it's all just his own words. Second, notability is not WP:INHERITED, meaning that writing a notable book does make the author notable. Each subject of a separate article here on Wikipedia must be notable on its own. If a book is notable but the author isn't, we'll have an article on the book and we may include content discussing the author but the author won't have a separate article. Msnicki (talk) 17:54, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, I must contend that in the case of Bent-Con.org, the group is non-for-profit and does have an editorial staff [9]. Furthermore, mentioning Reddish's attendence as a featured guest here [10] as well as his appearance in the video found here [11] confirm his participation and are WP:SECONDARY. Regarding the daily-journal.com and the gay.net citations, the journal article contains quotes, but is listed as "news" on the site; nowhere does it say it's an interview [12]. The gay.net piece does contain an interview, but also a large portion of the author's opinions. Surely we cannot disregard any article simply because the subject is quoted! I also ran a search and discovered two other tidbits, one again on daily-journal.com about an upcoming speaking engagement here [13] and an essay written by Reddish for The Advocate here [14], which supports the argument that the author, if not neccisarily his work, is worthy of note. Also, regarding the book review on Advocate.com, additional context should be noted. Please examine the link here [15] which provides a bigger picture; the magazine is ranking the novel on par for note with major television shows, films and theatrical productions.Froggie19Dude (talk) 21:00, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal I propose that Sex, Drugs & Superheroes be merged into David Reddish. Combining sources from Sex, Drugs & Superheroes can easily be combined in the David Reddish, and merging will not cause any problems as far as article size. See talk:Articles for creation/David Reddish, for further discussion.Froggie19Dude (talk) 16:48, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Lacks the significant coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability. Merging the book article to the author article does not resolve this as neither the book nor the author has the requisite coverage for notability. -- Whpq (talk) 19:45, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Deletion - Added additional independent sourcing which etablishes notabliltiy. Given that the author has just released a new book in recent weeks suggests further sources will be forthcoming and furthermore that, at least for the time being, novel pages should be combined with the author page as he has shown noteworthy work as verified by the aforementioned sources.Froggie19Dude (talk) 20:02, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Can you point out which source you deem to be independent? I've looked at all the sourcing, including what was just added, and none of it establishes notability. -- Whpq (talk) 21:13, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Reply - Happy to help Whpq. Regarding the Bent-Con pages [bent-con.org], if you read the mission statement, policies and details regarding the group, they are not-for-profit and confirm Reddish as a noted guest. Not just anyone can get featured status, panel discussions or be used in publicity, which Reddish does all threem as evidenced by the Youtube documentary in which he's featured prominently. Regarding The Daily Journal, if you pay attention to the formatting of the article, it is classified by the newspaper as a "news expose'," not a lifestyle interview or people profile, both of which are other categories listed on the website and, I would assume, the print edition. Nowhere does the author of the piece say he interviewed Reddish, and while he does offer quotes, he also makes assertions about Reddish's life that are unsourced, even within the sources discussed here. He could have drawn from other interviews, or interviewed Reddish's friends, family, collaborators, etc. Another article at The Daily Journal mentions a speaking engagement and Reddish's two novels and cites nothing from the author personally. Reddish's essay for The Advocate establishs him a writer for a major publication, and if you examine the full article which mentions his novel, it places it in a greater context as a work as noteworthy as major music, film and television entries. It does not appear that Reddish personally had anything to do with his mention of his novel in The Advocate, nor did he write or coerce his name into Bent-Con programming or publicity. User:Froggie19Dude|Froggie19Dude]] (talk) 21:40, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Upon reviewing Wikipedia's guidelines for notablility and sourching, the reviews from websites MyTakeOnTV.com and PinkisthenewBlog.com should be acceptable under Wiki guidlines since both Courtney K. and Trent Vanegas exert full editorial control over their content. Wikipedia rules state that opinion blogs are unreliable regarding opinions of people, but not their work. Moreover, the previously discussed article at gay.net qualifies as WP:SECONDARY because, while it does interpolate original research in the form of an interview, the preceeding paragraph is a review of the novel not based on anything said in the interview itself. Thus, the cited sources of The Daily Journal, MyTakeonTV.com, Bent-Con.org, PinkistheNewBlog.com, gay.net and The Advocate should all be permissable under Wiki guidelines because they are independent, edited sources providing significant coverage or attestation to the notability of Reddish and his work. Also, having reviewed Wikipedia:Secondary does not mean independent, both The Daily Journal article and the Gay.net article qualify as sources: Secondary sourced material is based on primary sourced material, and may include synthesis. Ergo, even if an interview appears as part of the article, if it is merged with original writing, and in this case, both articles are, it qualifies as WP: SECONDARY. In terms of notability, we have discussed significant coverage here, including independent and reliable sources that would suggest Reddish, his novel Sex, Drugs & Superheroes or come combined entry of the two should be included here.Froggie19Dude (talk) 00:10, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply - That's a long and winding path to trying to establish those sources as acceptable. For me, they are very marginal at best. I'm not swayed from my position. -- Whpq (talk) 19:35, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Reply - Apologies for my long windedness, (Why can't I add a smiley face here?!) but I'm trying to address each specific concern in order to be most productive. Which points are you unsold on regarding the validity of the sources we're discussing? Perhaps we can find an understanding that way.Froggie19Dude (talk) 19:57, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Reply - BENTCON as a reliable source; nope, absolutely not a reliable source nor notability. Blogs, very very marginal in this case. Daily Journal is a local paper covering a local interest story; usable as supplementary sourcing for notabilty, but not as one of the primary sources for notability. When judging notability, editors need to look at the number and quality of sources to come to their conclusion. For me, what has been presented falls short. -- Whpq (talk) 21:15, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom; no significant third-party WP:RScoverage whatsoever to support WP:BIO notability. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:16, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Having one "open letter" editorial published does not make one notable. WP:BIO notability requires significant coverage about the subject. One article in a newspaper with a circulation of 22,000 about a local also not enough either. Per WP:COI, please find another venue to promote yourself and your book.OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:33, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Reddish's work has also been noted in The Advocate and as far as I know, there is nothing in Wiki regulations that says a newspaper has to have a certain circulation level to be considered a reliable source--that also ignores the existance of the Journal website, and says nothing of how many readers access it. Moreover, that overlooks the incidental or in-depth coverage provided by other sources of varying degree. Furthermore, please refrain from personal attacks; Reddish and I are not the same person, and to imply as much is an insult to him and to his defenders like myself.Froggie19Dude (talk) 20:44, 16 July 2014 (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/David_Reddish&oldid=1115001739"
Uses material from the Wikipedia article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Reddish, released under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license.