Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan Neil Falcone (2nd nomination)

Ryan Neil Falcone

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

This article is not quite the same as was deleted per previous AFD as it contains more recent information~~he has now been published offline.~~ So rather than overturn the previous AFD or delete as substantially identical, I am opening a fresh AFD to see if consensus has shifted. Ϣere SpielChequers 12:30, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. He has not been published offline yet. His story will allegedly be published in an anthology in June 2011 by MayDecember Publications. That in itself does not make him notable as an author at all. This is basically an unreferenced (and seemingly unreferenceable) biography of a living person, apart from the fact that he has published various short stories on e-zines. I have removed per WP:BLP biographical information including where he lives and the name of his child. No reference whatsoever was provided for those personal details and until one from a reliable source can be found, the material should not be re-added. I have {{fact}} tagged the rest. I also changed the text to reflect what the reference actually said concerning his story "Six". It generated seventy on-line votes not "reviews" as had been stated in the article (link now broken). (This story also generated 5 two sentence comments by other website users.[1]) All sources are merely links to his own online published stories and a couple of very brief mentions in blogs and other self-published websites. comprehensively fails WP:AUTHOR as well as WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO, just as it did the first time. Voceditenore (talk) 13:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Voceditenore (talk) 16:23, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - It is pledge season at Cornell University, and I fear that the Cornell chapter of Phi Kappa Psi has made spamming Wikipedia with articles about their recent graduates one of their pledge projects. While I think that learning about alumni is an admirable undertaking for college freshmen, I suggest that they temper their urge to share their research on Wikipedia. Racepacket (talk) 18:51, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Unless there is some COI, the discussion should be standards based. The new material indicates notability, and the sources are independent of materials posted by the author. There appear to be some researching requirements, but we've all dealt with those issues in the past. What concerns me is the vision of a small elite within Wikidom is becoming he equivalent fo the French Salon of the 18th century, over-defining what is culturally acceptable to the exclusion of diversity. That is not Wiki; at least from this Syracuse grad's view.Coldplay3332 (talk) 20:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply The COI is without question, but that has no bearing on notability, which is the sole criteria being considered here. Can you please state which of the notability criteria this article currently satisfies—not what you think they ought to be, but the existing ones? Can you please supply evidence that the article's subject, Ryan Neil Falcone, has himself been the subject of multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable sources, not simply that he got his short-stories published in various e-zines and allegedly will be published in the future in an anthology? Simply being published does not make the author notable. Voceditenore (talk) 21:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
State the Conflict of Interest Reviewed last falls discussion, and checked the participants against this discussion (including the Speedy Delete discussion), and I am not seeing the CoI. I think that should be discussed first: where is the CoI that is "without question"? Coldplay3332 (talk) 01:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As stated above, COI has no bearing on AFD policy. Its discussion here would therefore be both irelevant and inappropriate. Any COI concerns should be addressed at Talk:Ryan Neil Falcone. The previous AFD discussion mentioned COI because of the possibility of sock/meat puppetry being used in an effort to vote stack. There is currently no reason to suspect that puppetry is influencing this discussion, and therefore no reason to bring up COI at this particular AFD.4meter4 (talk) 01:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The sources may perhaps be independent of the subject of the article, but are they "reliable secondary sources" that demonstrate notability? Would these editors be fighting to include the subject of the article if he was not a Phi Kappa Psi recent graduate? Racepacket (talk) 02:36, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per voceditenore. The subject clearly fails the notability guidelines at WP:Author and more generally at WP:N. To Coldplay3332, I suggest you read Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia:Notability, and Wikipedia:Verifiability as you seem to be completely ignorant about the purpose behind wikipedia and what it is trying to accomplish. 4meter4 (talk) 20:47, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Voceditenore. The article still fails WP:AUTHOR, as noted. Enigma^msg 03:08, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, refs do not establish notability, it's not even close. Hairhorn (talk) 19:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not seeing this writer's achievements passing WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR. I would need to be seeing discussion of the writer's work in reliable sources, independent reviews, nominations for recognised awards, and while this writer may have a promising career ahead I don't think he notable yet to the degree wikipedia accepts. Punkrocker1991 (talk) 23:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]