Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Garrett Sutton

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. Davewild (talk) 21:02, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Garrett Sutton (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)

Article's subject fails notability. References are either dead links, are not independent of the subject, or connect to web sites where the author has paid to have his or her work reviewed and then have the review published. There does not appear to be sufficient independent coverage of this person to justify an article— such media coverage as there is appears to be of his work, not him, and most of it looks like it is self-generated. KDS4444^Talk 06:02, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jump to: navigation, search

While it is true that Kirkus and Pacific Reviews require payment to review books, reviewers have the right to write negative reviews. Authors can ask that negative reviews not be published, but their fee is not returned. In that way, they are taking an acceptable risk to have their work reviewed and Kirkus and Pacific remain notable sources. Wikipedia also maintains articles for other Rich Dad author (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharon_Lechter) who have similar references. However, the Garrett article will be properly edited snd remove sections that point to dead links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Woodenships513 (talk • contribs) 14:49, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(I think that whether or not the author risks having a bad review, this is still not evidence of notability, only of an attempt to purchase it— a bad review would also be evidence of notability if it came from a truly independent source, which it appears these are not.) KDS4444^Talk 15:11, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. Kirkus and Pacific had full authority to give the book a negative review. These organizations are not paid to prepare positive reviews, only to write them. I also feel its relevant to note that Wikipedia allowed Amazon user reviews as credible references for Sharon Lechter, along with several personal websites. In the meantime, sections in Garrett's page that were linked to non-working links(bestseller list) were removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.95.232.145 (talk) 17:30, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have missed my point. My point is that any review which is the result of the author having paid for it is not evidence of that author's notability, only of the depth of his pocketbook, and notability is not something one can purchase. It does not matter whether the review is positive or negative, it matters only that it is not independent of the subject. (That Amazon user reviews may have been treated as credible references in other articles is not the focus of this deletion debate.) KDS4444^Talk 02:11, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:43, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• If the content of the two reviews is objective, and I have no opinion on whether it is, excluding it from the encyclopedia doesn't seem to me to sit well with our object of being "the sum total of human knowledge". James500 (talk) 08:12, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

James500, what if they are objective but not independent? I am not questioning the objectivity of the reviews, I am questioning their independence. The author paid to have the reviews written— that to me means they lack independence of the author. (BTW, "sum total of human knowledge" and "an indiscriminate collection of information" sound a lot alike, don't they? I am just noticing this.)

Consider this scenario: I, KDS4444, decide I want Wikipedia to have an article on me. I am not notable (and really, I am not, trust me here), but I decide to write a book about, oh, say, how great my grandmother was (and she was a great lady, but probably not a notable one by Wikipedia's standards). I show it around, but no one wants to review the work of an unpublished author (okay, I actually have published a couple of things, but let's ignore those). So then I realize, "Hey, I can PAY some organization and THEY will HAVE to write a review of my work!" I cut them a check, and a month or so later my book gets reviewed— let's say it gets terrible reviews: "Who wants to read 800 pages about Midwestern nurse with four kids and a dog?" etc. And let's say I do the same thing elsewhere, paying other organizations to write reviews, all of them awful. Fine. Then I can come to Wikipedia and write up my article: "The works of KDS4444 received negative critical responses from several sources", and I can list my sources as these places I paid to write the reviews. Does this then mean I am notable? God, I hope not! Because I am not notable, and I know it. And neither is my dearly departed grandmother (could I use those reviews as evidence of her notability? Please say, "No"). Notability should come from sources independent of their subjects. When the New York Times Book Review looks at your work and reviews it, they aren't getting paid by you to do it. And even if they say your work sucks, that might still make you notable for having been reviewed by them! I am beating a dead horse here, but do you see my point? KDS4444^Talk 15:28, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Garrett's history as a writer did not come out of the blue, nor was it an independent project, as your hypothetical example seems to suggest. Garrett wrote his books under the Rich Dad brand, of which he is also an adviser. He also co-wrote books with Sharon Lechter, another noted member of the Rich Dad organization. This debate seems to center solely on the reviews he received and not the other examples of notability present in the article. I also think it is important to note that Wikipedia has accepted Kirkus Reviews for numerous authors. While I understand that other articles do not necessarily play into this debate, how can Wikipedia maintain its reputation if it accepts something at one moment and dismisses it the next? Past examples need to always be taken into account. A search for Kirkus Reviews on Wikipedia shows how many authors and books use their reviews as notable references (and sometimes as the only references). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Woodenships513 (talk • contribs) 20:43, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that Wikipedia is created by multiple people, and the existence of a reference to a website on another article does not justify that reference being used in another article. Could you please link to some pages where the website is used as a reference? Pishcal — ♣ 17:53, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

North America, I would like to request the closure of this deletion notice. The second relisting was posted over a week ago with no additional debate. The one issue regarding Kirkus Reviews has been addressed by establishing that Wikipedia has accepted reviews from this source in the past. None of the other references, nor his direct connection with other Wiki articles, have been under dispute. Additionally, the article has been updated with new references, namely:

--An award nomination for IndieFab's Book of the year

--A review from Publisher's Weekly — Preceding unsigned comment added by Woodenships513 (talk • contribs) 18:29, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spartaz, WIkipedia guidelines say that articles should not be relisted more than twice. If an article is relisted more than twice, guidelines recommend a short explanation on the reason why. Can you please share why you feel a third relisting is necessary? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Woodenships513 (talk • contribs) 16:44, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for asking. I relisted it in the hope that other users will pitch in - which won't happen if you badger everyone who posts to this page. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:35, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Obvious COI issues based on article creator. NPOV possibly violated. Possible resumbit through AfC. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 20:26, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Three observations: (1) The concept of "badgering" is basically nonsense. There is no way that 'talking too much' or 'backchatting' is going to deter anyone from !voting in this AfD. It is more likely the lack of participation is because editors are unsure how to proceed when faced with book reviews that are paid for but nevertheless objective and favourable. Plus which, AfD is heavily overloaded with too many nominations. (2) Woodenships513 did not reply to everyone who posted to this page. He did not reply to me. (3) COI and POV are per se not valid grounds for deletion (unlike lack of notability or blatant advertising). POV can be fixed by editing (WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD) and COI is wholly irrelevant. James500 (talk) 21:13, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

James500 I agree fully with what you are saying. However, the issue is no one has bothered to improve this article. I recommend fixing MoS citations and ping me when done. I'll changing my vote if article is passable. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 20:07, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IMPERFECT says that there is no deadline for fixing problems that are capable of being fixed by ordinary editing. Accordingly "no one has bothered to fix these problems yet" can't be entertained as an argument for deletion. It does not matter whether those type of problems are fixed within the duration of this AfD or in ten or a hundred years time. Sooner or later they will be fixed. If we attempted to impose such a deadline, Wikipedia would inevitably suffer the same fate as Nupedia. The sequence of events would be this: first there would be a massive deletion spree; this would cause most of our editors to leave the project (meaning that the deleted content won't be replaced, and our 'good' content won't be maintained properly, resulting in a a 'vicious cycle' of further deletions) and would reduce our article traffic, particularly from search engines (meaning that the level of donations to the WMF, particularly from readers responding to fundraising banners, would collapse); this 'perfect storm' would cause the WMF to go bankrupt, and that would be the end of Wikipedia, forever. Such a deadline would defeat the whole point of running the encyclopedia as a wiki, which was to avoid having the sort of deadlines that would be fatal to a project like ours. Accordingly, we do not impose such a deadline. James500 (talk) 02:07, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@James500: Generally when I feel a subject is notable and should be kept I bring sources to prove the subject passes GNG. I haven't seen this yet, if you are afraid material will be deleted then protect it with sources. None of those sources passes GNG for his notability most primary or book related, however this source helps Fox Business, but isn't entirely enough to push him over the edge. COI does make me worry, it should for you as well though your worries may be a bit misplaced, if this article was written by an established editor instead of an editor who acts in the capacity of WP:NOTHERE I would reconsider. Because of these conditions strong sourcing is required. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 02:55, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My comments above do not argue that Sutton is, or is not, notable. I am presently neutral with respect to that issue. I am concerned to reject plainly invalid arguments that would take this AfD in irrelevant directions if they gained any traction, and set an undesirable precedent if they were followed to the point of deleting the article. (Note that I'm not saying it couldn't be deleted on other grounds, just not POV, COI or MOS). COI on the part of the article creator does not affect the strength of the sourcing required to establish notability. It is always the same no matter who created the article. Nothing on Wikipedia affects the notability of topics. I disagree with the proposition that "book related" sources, which I presume means book reviews, can't satisfy GNG per se. Some book reviews will satisfy GNG, and AUTHOR admits some book reviews as grounds for notability. The nominator's rationale was that the reviews were not independent, not that authors can't inherit notability from their books (we have always accepted that they can). James500 (talk) 05:32, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the page and a little searching shows lots of PR muscle behind promoting this financial writer; he may even be making Big Buck$$ giving expensive seminars on the topic. However, despite the fact that financial advice books regularly attract media coverage (articles with headlines like "New Book shows how to keep the money in the family") run all the time in newspapers and financial advice magazines. And yet there seems to be virtually nothing out there beyond initial book reviews in reliable places like Kirkus. No coverage = no WP page. Delete.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:59, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The only reliable and significant source I see here is Fox Business, and that was a very short article. Many of the references here should be edited out, such as linking to reviews in Goodreads (which have no authority at all). The Pacific Book Review is a "buy a review from us" site[1], and the radio interview is a one-person outfit. Reviews in Kirkus and Publisher's Weekly, while they could bolster an otherwise unclear case, really only serve to say that the book exists and has been promoted by the publisher. The publisher, RDA Press, appears to be a vanity press (there is no information on its page other than books by Sutton and four other authors). Oh, also, the "Rich Dad Poor Dad" series is mainly known for its bad reviews, although it is notable that folks like Slate gave it lengthy bad reviews. LaMona (talk) 02:32, 10 May 2015 (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.