Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Hays
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. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:56, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Scott Hays (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unable to find independent WP:RS indicating that the subject meets our basic notability requirements. Nor does the subject's work meet additional criteria for WP:AUTHOR. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:24, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:29, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - the coverage on his charity CD is restricted to local coverage, that's great that he's an active member of the community working to make it better, but it's not enough to meet notability. As an author, I cannot find any substantial coverage of his work beyond these results for a book he co-authored. Three articles spread over two papers. Taken together, that's not sufficient for me to say he meets our inclusion guidelines. -- Whpq (talk) 14:00, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a comment as well that all the above news cites do appear to be about Bob Delmonteque, with Hays mentioned only as a hired writer. Delmonteque would seem to be encyclopedically notable, actually. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:11, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Yes it does appear that way, but with the article behind pay walls, it is difficult to assess the content. -- Whpq (talk) 14:47, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 16 October 2010 (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.