Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jess C Scott

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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jess C Scott

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Self-published author of questionable notability. Provided sources are mainly blogs. No significant coverage (Twitter mentions are not significant coverage) from independent third-party reliable sources. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 16:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Greetings--I would like to request help/advice for independent authors to establish notability. Would one or two notices in notable publications be sufficient? Before that is established, I believe Ms. Scott has established some level of notability so far, within the independent writing/publishing sphere. Re: "Publetariat.com", which publishes "the most valuable content from the web for indie authors and small imprints"--this is a citation of Ms. Scott's contributions to the burgeoning field of independent writing/publishing. Should a person be not-notable, because they are not mainstream enough to be extensively covered by mainstream, established media outlets (for the time being)? Elfpunk (talk) 17:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: P.S. The very concept and model of Wikipedia itself is based on self-publishing--I think this should be taken into consideration, with regards to subjects or articles that have to do with self-publishing in the digital era. Elfpunk (talk) 18:46, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Should a person be not-notable, because they are not mainstream enough to be extensively covered by mainstream, established media outlets (for the time being)?" 'Fraid so. If you can show reliable sources to indicate wider spread coverage, maybe, As it stands, the refs list isn't worth tuppence. Have a look at WP:RS to see what is required. As to Wikipedia, it's self-publishing - in a way. It is moderated and supervised by thousands of people, whereas self-publishing of books is governed solely by the funds available. Self-published books can become notable - or be taken up by the 'mainstream' publishers - but it's usually a long-term process or a wild exception. There's no evidence here of either. Peridon (talk) 19:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While I have no opinion about this specific article and nomination, perhaps it is time to begin asking ourselves in this ebook era whether notability guidelines need to be adjusted for self-publishing ebook authors. Specifically, might it not be more reasonable to look at these things according to some sort of quantitative-output parameters rather than relying upon "significant coverage" in the ever-less-relevant mainstream media? This applies for both books and music and even to some extent to indie filmmaking. I don't have a dog in this fight, but it seems to me that the existing Notability Guidelines are looking long in the tooth... Carrite 20:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I made a similar comment a while back re WP:MUSIC, discussing a group that had no records but had a song with 1 million+ YouTube hits. The response was more or less that people weren't willing to add YouTube hits to the WP:MUSIC notability markers, at least not yet. And a better case could be made for music, where album sales are plummeting and the Billboard album charts don't mean much anymore. Also, views or downloads (if free) can be gamed, and there isn't a reliable third-party source that counts these things, I don't think. Herostratus (talk) 02:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Appreciate the info + comments. I would make a suggestion for notability guidelines to be looked at (with regards to self-publishing authors, who can also publish in hardcopy via Print-on-Demand systems), if I knew who to contact / where to post the suggestion. As an aspiring published author, I have observed the ways and means of the publishing industry for some time. For example, book publicists:

"work with editors at newspapers, magazines, and websites to obtain positive reviews and create feature coverage for [an author's] book" [1].

There is no way to determine which author (traditionally published, or not) has attained credibility in this way, unless they make a statement. Is this truly credible, in a 3rd party neutral kind of way, when the credibility from the source could have been purchased/bought? Elfpunk (talk) 20:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per WP:SPS and WP:GNG. --> Gggh ^talk/_contribs 21:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While self-published works can be notable, they usually are not. There is no indication that this author and his works are exceptions. Independent, reliable sources indicating notability are needed, and so far not provided, for that. Edward321 (talk) 13:37, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Greetings--I've contacted the author. She might be able to score a feature on "new media literature" on Salon.com (she has "some contacts who might be able to help her out"). I'll keep a lookout if/when the feature appears, as I believe that is a reliable source indicating some notability. Maybe she could use that as leverage to get the minimum multiple articles/reviews from non-self-published sources. Elfpunk (talk) 14:14, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Found zero hits on gnews. All references are to SPS'es. Fail WP:AUTHOR which requires at a minimum "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Until such references exist the article should be and remain deleted. Sailsbystars (talk) 14:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per the above; no news hits, no reliable sources, no pass on GNG or WP:AUTHOR. That being said, if anyone wants to overhaul WP:BIO to include self-published sources, I commend them to the appropriate talk pages to discuss the same and lobby for consensus to reflect their POV. Until that happens, we'll have to go with the current requirements of WP:RS. Ravenswing 19:16, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Hello Ravenswing, thanks for mentioning about WP:BIO to include self-published sources / reflection of POV. I'll gather my thoughts on the existing notability guidelines for self-publishing book authors, before lobbying for consensus on the WP:BIO or WP:AUTHOR talk page. Elfpunk (talk) 14:35, 21 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.