Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maurice Cotterell

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. Davewild (talk) 18:16, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maurice Cotterell

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

Not a notable author. He may be published under a Simon and Schuster banner, but pages and pages of Google hits have not yet delivered anything reliable (or even halfway decent) on the subject or his works. In other words, fails the GNG and AUTHOR. Drmies (talk) 15:08, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete. I was able to find nothing about this author beyond his own promotional material and related pages on fringe content. Paul B (talk) 15:14, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete, there's no evidence to support any degree of note per WP:AUTHOR, and indeed far too little in the way of WP:RS for a BLP. -- Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 15:17, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 15:20, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 15:20, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question He is described on the Simon and Schuster site as a "bestselling author" - isn't that title (and I have no idea what it actually means) inherently notable? Regardless of how I feel about the author, wouldn't that automatically confer some notability? (Personally, as the author has publicly supported the idea that the twin towers were felled by a "secret energy weapon" deployed by the government on 9/11... Well, 'nuff said there) Scr★pIron^IV 15:36, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Bestselling" is an ambiguous term, since it doesn't give any sense of scope. "New York Times bestseller" would indicate notability, because it means the author's work has been ranked by the NYT, but somebody who sold the only book sold at an event could arguably call himself best-selling. —C.Fred (talk) 15:40, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And what of The Sunday Times? That is apparently where the claim lies, but I do not know of the paper's notability, as I am unfamiliar with UK publications. Scr★pIron^IV 15:45, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A "best-selling author" is likely notable, but if no sources proving such best-selling can be found it's a hollow claim. Note that the article says "His books on Science, Spirituality and Archaeology were published in a series of Sunday Times top-ten bestsellers"--that's not the same as "His books on Science, Spirituality and Archaeology were Sunday Times top-ten bestsellers". In fact, the phrase is so cryptic that it may not mean anything at all. Also, JFK was an inside job. One more thing: if you want a copy of The Lonely Prius, my daughter's best-selling graphic novel, drop me a line. We do "Written on Demand" at my (publishing) house. Drmies (talk) 16:09, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It doesnt come much more notable - as a newspaper. It's the Sunday wersion of the Times of London, but it's also become rather famous for being a somewhat baggy and populist title. However, the real issue is that we are not given any context for this. It may simply mean that he had a book that was published as part of a series one of which was in a top-ten list in a sub-category of 'conspiracy literature' or something. Paul B (talk) 16:13, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Paul B., how many copies of The Lonely Prius do you need? Drmies (talk) 17:15, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've read it. It was channelled to me by the Mahatamas. Paul B (talk) 18:38, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete How I personally view the author can not be written here, for fear of violating WP:BLP or some such. I have been unable to locate a source for the "best-selling" claim, apart from a reference to his co-author's biography on gutenberg.org.[1] Without having access to the actual Sunday Times best seller list, I would agree that without a source it is a hollow claim. I gladly support with a vote to delete. If someone presents a source, or provides indication that he is notable, then I would reconsider. One can be notable for having fringe viewpoints, I guess. Scr★pIron^IV 16:23, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete - I have been unable to find any third-party WP:RS write-up about the author that could support notability under WP:AUTHOR. The only borderline claim of notability is "Sunday Times top-ten bestsellers", but the only evidence I can find to verify these claims are the author's own website or advert listings for the books - the lack of verifiability is compounded by the few self-published claims not specifying which Sunday Times, further reducing the value towards meeting notability. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:24, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note. I doubt this is going to change anyone's mind, but for the record, HighBeam Research produces three more articles from that renowned scientific publication, the Daily Mail. The titles, for your edification: "God-Man With Golden Touch", 16 February 2001; "Solved: The Warrior's Code, 24 January 2003; "666; According to Legend, Tomorrow Is the Day of the Devil - and Will Trigger the End of the World. Superstitious Hokum? Hollywood Hype? or Should We Really Prepare for the Worst", 5 June 2006. (There's an older Daily Mail piece already listed in the article as a references, sans link.) A GBooks search also suggests that his name pops up as a reference in a variety of what look to be other similarly fringey publications; nothing that looked on its face like a reliable source, though. An author can certainly be notable for his fringe views, but I haven't found any particularly compelling evidence of that here. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:06, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the Daily FMail is considered notable in these parts.--ukexpat (talk) 20:42, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ooooh I smell expatriate ressentiment... But yeah, while it's notable, it's not reliable, and don't let John hear that it was mentioned. Drmies (talk) 22:47, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no, I was referring to Wikipedia, not to the USA. I have never cared for the DM even before I moved to the US or became active on Wikipedia. I am a Times man myself.--ukexpat (talk) 12:22, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Claims to be notable but all sources are primary. —HaRvEyWaRbUrN^TaLk 13:21, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:AUTHOR, pure and simple. Miniapolis 23:17, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We need reviews in more reliable sources than the Daily Mail to pass WP:AUTHOR, and if they exist they haven't been found here or added to the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:31, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Daily Mail is simply not reliable enough to prove notability. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:37, 9 May 2015 (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.