Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simon R. Taylor

:{{la|Simon R. Taylor}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Simon_R._Taylor Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Simon R. Taylor}})

Reason Simtaylor (talk) 17:59, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

I am the subject of the Wikipedia article Simon R. Taylor and believe the article should be taken down entirely.

I’m afraid that none of the impressive BBC references exist. The only legitimate links are to my own website, an article in the local press, and a few reviewers of my two self-published books.

Some of the revisions are quite defamatory and distressing. I don’t believe that I meet Wikipedia’s test of notability, and on that basis I would request that the page is removed

: {{comment}} There has been discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Simon R Taylor and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive262#Simon R. Taylor. The article was PRODed {{diff2|814884228|here}} by {{ping|Afriendlyeditor}} (not highly active), for lack of notability. {{ping|Atlantic306}} {{diff2|815696810|deproded}}. The main thrust of this debate seems to me to be the veracity of the BBC interview - which I do not believe to be verifiable. Then it falls to the GNG requirement of coverage in multiple significant mentions reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. This seems borderline without the BBC to me. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 18:08, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

(Article subject here): With the exception of one small piece in the local press, the remaining sources are a couple of book reviews by fairly generic book-review bloggers, and my own website. I'm not sure that non-famous book review blogs count as reliable secondary sources. I'd love to be more famous with my next one :) but as it stands this page is mostly a tool to make flippant or hurtful comments. Simtaylor (talk) 18:21, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 April 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:10, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

• delete I found a schedule for the day in question on BBC Radio 4. In my judgement, the BBC source is {{invalid}}, as I find no mention of the purported speaker nor the programme.{{cite web|url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/schedules/p00fzl7j/2011/07/23|title=BBC Radio 4 FM - Schedules, Saturday 23 July 2011|website=BBC}} Hence, I do not believe WP:verifiability is satisfied. I'm leaning delete as a consequence. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 18:45, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

{{reflist talk}}

• Delete as if that source is fake it calls into question the rest of the article, also World Cat shows that two of his books are only held in 3 and 4 libraries respectively. Atlantic306 (talk) 19:06, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
• Speedy delete - G11, A7 or A11 - pick one, they probably all work in this case. ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:42, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
• Speedy delete WP:G11 WP:A7 Septrillion (talk) 03:09, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:38, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:38, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

• Comment This article does not qualify for speedy deletion in any way. It is not unambiguous promotion, and a review of his work in a newspaper that covers the whole of Scotland (the Daily Record is more than "local press") is a clear indication of importance.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:28, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

::Fair point. Mind you, the DR is very much a tabloid, of a similar vintage to The Sun or the Daily Mirror, so I wouldn't like to give it undue weight. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 14:06, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

:::I disagree that it doesn't qualify as a speedy delete. I removed the promotional citations that were sourced to his own website and self-published books. The BLP even says he's not notable and agrees the article should be deleted. After I removed the self-sources, we are left with 2 questionable sources that support a promotional article about this person who wants to sell his self-published books. ^{Atsme📞📧} 14:34, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

::::Speedy deletion is only appropriate in completely uncontroversial cases, which this is not. It does not look overtly promotional to me. Also, he didn't publish the book himself - it was Bluebox, an independent publisher. Why not just let the AfD run its course? (I'm certainly leaning delete.)--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:39, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

:::::I'm afraid it was self-published - see the Companies House Register for Bluebox Publishing (https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/SC379407/officers) which shows the only director was the book's author (me). Also, while the newspaper article is on the Daily Record's website, it was published in print by the Paisley Daily Express; the local paper. Daily Record since bought that paper and all PDE articles are now the DR website. Simtaylor (talk) 16:25, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

::::::OK, thanks for the clarification. I was misled by the quote from Bluebox in the Daily Record. (Who'd have thought a tabloid article could be misleading?).--Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:49, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

:::::::The scandal! I mean, you could all buy my book and pass it round make me notable if you want. You'll love it! (Jokes...) Simtaylor (talk) 20:34, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

::::::::Well if it's jokes you want, pay a visit to the museums at User:EEng and if that floats your boat, stay around and write a few articles on really notable people for us. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:41, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

:::::::::I second that nomination, Simtaylor! Find a comfy chair first. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:50, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:NAUTHOR and I cannot find enough significant coverage to meet WP:GNG.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:49, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
• Delete Couldn't find anything substantial in sources, so I think a WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE trumps everything. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:30, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:AUTHOR, fails WP:BASIC. My searches fail to find SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:09, 17 April 2018 (UTC) enou
• Delete doesn't really rise above the level of promotion or gossip. Also apparent subject has requested deletion. One of the removed parts said that he is "notoriously private" and this seems to have resulted in a lack of coverage.--Auric talk 22:31, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
• Although the speedy didn't apply, WP:SNOW + BLPREQUEST makes a good case against keeping this open much longer. Anyone, anyone...? —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 05:51, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oh, and Delete, of course :) —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 05:51, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
• Delete - I think the arguments outlined above would support deletion. Dunarc (talk) 19:18, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.