Talk:Cecil Murphey

Should this even be an article?

This question arises out of a complaint by CatM58 at my talk page about this deletion I made, which is very similar to the deletion made by Drmies here, and then reinserted by CatM58 here.

Leaving aside the matter of the style of the list of books and use of boldface, neither of which meet WP's general standard, but are eminently fixable, many of the titles are described as "ghostwritten". The only place I can find Cecil Murphy acknowledged as the author is on his website. As far as I can tell, his name is not on the books, nor has anything been written about his authorship of them by substantive sources, or, indeed, any source at all. (Many others on the list I deleted are also marked "with Cec -or Cecil- Murphey-", but they are verifiable by looking at the books' covers.) While ghostwriting is a common practice for celebrities in many fields, the whole point is that a true ghost does not get acknowledgement. I have no idea how we could verify these titles and feel that they, at least, have to be deleted.

There is the claim that the title 90 Minutes in Heaven "has sold more than 5 million copies, been printed in 26 languages, and was listed on the New York Times bestseller list continuously for five years." I have checked every NYT Best Sellers' List for the years 2004 to 2011, and I can't find one mention of the title. If anyone else can find it, or can find someone other than Murphey or a source likely informed by Murphey, please help us out here. The same goes for the 5M copies and the 26 languages claims. Gifted Hands: The Ben Carson Story has similar problems. The link in the article is to the WP page about a movie made with this title, but it contains no reference to the book or to Murphey. I can't find a review or an article about the book or about the book's association with the original 1992 video-documentary of the same name.

All the personal, biographical information in the article appears to come from Murphey's website or other sources informed by it or by him. I am having no success in coming up with a justification for this article. I am seriously considering suggesting it go to WP:AFD on the basis of a lack of notability. I am hoping that by bringing this discussion here, I can drum up interest and sources. So far, the only real contributors adding content (that seldom stays for long) are Ltum2, who started the article and has done almost nothing else on WP and CatM58 who arrived in early September of this year and, aside from one comment each on my talk page and that of Drmies, has edited nothing but this article. Bielle (talk) 04:24, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

• I found a ROCK-SOLID source: [1]. Justin Bieber must be like Christ! Just to make matters clear--that is not a reliable source for these huge claims. Anyway, I have little to add. We're dealing with vanispam here; I just removed the same unverified claims from 90 Minutes in Heaven, and found no more references to add to the article. PS: If nothing comes up, AfD is the answer. Drmies (talk) 15:49, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

• The irony here is that if CatM58 -- who clearly is in some way connected to the subject of the article -- had simply left it as it was, there was every possibility that no one would have bothered much about it. Instead, he or she tried to increase the "vanispam" content and drew attention to the article once again. A good first step here ould be to tell CatM58 that they should edit only on the basis of the restrictions spelled out in WP:COI (i.e. make suggestions on this talk page and allow other editors to decide whether they have value or not, etc). Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:47, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for finding that paperback list for the NYT best sellers. I didn't know there was a difference between hard cover and PB. That makes the book notable, but the "with" author, I am not convinced. Bielle (talk) 04:31, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I've just added the NY Bestseller list source for the book that apparently no one believes exists. I hope now that you all realize it was indeed accurate information, you will stop with the accusations. I don't appreciate these negative comments that have been made on these Talk Pages. Just because you're not familiar with any of his books doesn't mean they don't exist. Not only do they exist, but Cecil Murphey's name IS INDEED ON EVERY BOOK COVER, He is the author of the book about Ben Carson and the movie had his name in the opening credits. + :::Thanks for finding that paperback list for the NYT best sellers. I didn't know there was a difference between hard cover and PB. That makes the book notable, but the "with" author, I am not convinced. Bielle (talk) 04:31, 14 October 2012 (UTC) − Not sure where you get your information, or lack thereof. You're threatening to remove this page, but what you don't realize is that's been happening for awhile now; one section at a time.CatM58 (talk) 05:31, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

There was no question but that the book existed. I was looking in the wrong set of NYT Best Sellers, not knowing it had only been issued in paperback -or, indeed, that there was a separate paperback list. It isn't a matter of not believing; it is a matter of being able to verify information, especially claims of notability, awards, numbers of copies, languages. I am sure you have been directed to the policies on WP for reliable sources before. I suggest you read it carefully so that you aren't in the awkward position of taking personally what is a standard requirement for articles. Every is a request for a reliable source for the information. If the note stays up for a long time, the text to which it is appended is likely to be deleted.

There is no "threat" to delete this article. It is, instead, a question as to whether or not Cecil Murphey meets the requirements of notability for a writer. The criteria follow, with my comments in respect of Murphey:

1.The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.

I can find no evidence which discusses Murphey or cites him.

2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.

No evidence

3. The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.

The movie created from Ben Carson's story was a TV release and not a feature-length film as far as I can discover.

4. The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

A book on the NYT Best Sellers' List might be sufficient if we could find any substantive reviews of it in reliable sources.

This is not a negative process -quite the contrary. We are trying to find evidence that Cecil Murphey meets the WP standard of inclusion. The NYT Best Seller link is a start, even though it doesn't support the whole of the original claim. Bielle (talk) 06:09, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Attribution

I am looking for cites Murphey's nme for the Velma Barfield book Woman on Death Row and for a Bishop Eddy Long book around 1995; it's not the one with Jenkins, obviously. Is there anyone with better Google skills than mine? Bielle (talk) 18:37, 14 October 2012 (UTC)