Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Crow Riley

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. yandman 16:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Crow Riley

Delete apparent vanity page for a writer, sourced to his own works. An editor wanted speedy but there seems to be some vague claim to notability here, so let's go through the process and delete it the unspeedy way. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can only reiterate what I said in my initial discussion. Any "notability" here is an illusion. I did thorough research on the author in question. There are no copies of his work at bookstores, not even reputable online bookstores. I'm not sure how much more needs to be discussed. How can a self-published writer with no apparent following be considered "encyclopedic"? Over the years, and my time on Wikipedia, I've seen far more notable writers than Joseph Crow Riley get deleted instantly, and they were actually published by true publishers! If you can demystify the "vague claim to notability," which must exist outside himself, then perhaps we can keep this discussion going. Otherwise, I believe it's completely absurd to allow an author to write their own page and self-cite. Furthermore, he added his own "caution" tags to protect himself from deletion and to fool editors and administrators into looking over the page as if it's something authentic in progress. Check the history. Again, after conducting several hours of research, there is no way this author should be on Wikipedia. Thepagemakerandchecker (talk) 22:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing to bring to your attention. He called his first poem THE ONE "highly acclaimed" yet there's no mention of it anywhere. I would think a highly acclaimed poem would be easy to track down whether online or offline, but that's not the case here. It's clearly self-promotion with no credible sources. Thepagemakerandchecker (talk) 22:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - ~200 or so unique hits in Google, zero book hits. I see a few websites where his poems are published, but none of those could be considered third-party reliable sources as to his notability. §FreeRangeFrog 00:21, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Blatant self-promotion. Self-written. Self-cited. No credible outside sources available. No notability. Please delete. Johnny Two Times (talk) 22:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)— Johnny Two Times (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete - I cannot find any sources writing about this poet, or any infomation to satisfy verifiability -- Whpq (talk) 20:52, 2 March 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.