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. There is sufficient consensus that the subject of the article does not meet our notability guidelines. — Aitias // discussion 21:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Cowlin[edit]

Chris Cowlin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Contested PROD. Relies entirely on self-published sources, is promotional in tone, and nothing in it satisfies any of the criteria in WP:AUTHOR as it stands. Rodhullandemu 20:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I agree with nom. Chutznik (talk) 21:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wholly promotional article on non-notable person. Most contributions to the article seem to be by a single IP editor, whose other contributions seem limited to the subjects of books published by this person. Little grape (talk) 21:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not a notable writer or publisher. Fences&Windows 23:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:10, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Seems to have a bit of coverage ([1][2][3][4][5][6]) which can raise some questions particularly in relation to WP:AUTHOR#3. Either way, these sources and others I saw in search results indicate that this subject at least passes the general notability guideline. ZabMilenko^{How am I driving?} 09:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Having looked at Milenko's sources, I'm very unimpressed. The GNG, which he says the subject at least passes, specifically holds that ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content." Almost all of these sources are about this quiz book and not about the one of several co-authors mentioned, although Mr. Cowlin seems to be the most frequently quoted of the lot; surely Milenko knows that a source, to be valid, must be about the subject, and not merely mentioning his name in passing. WP:AUTHOR#3 requires a "significant or well-known" book, but for a book to be deemed such under its own notability guideline: "Some of these [sources] should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary. The immediately preceding criterion excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book." This is what we're seeing here.  Ravenswing  21:53, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Milenko is on target. The fact that an article may prove difficult to expand beyond a stub is not a good reason to delete it. Perhaps it would be better to merge the content into an article about the publishing company, but since there is no such article that's not an option. The "news" section on Cowlin's own website shows more than 25 radio interviews in the last few months, averaging about two per week, quite a few with the BBC. (It's in a frame without scrollbars, so you have to fiddle around with it to get it scroll.) Plus newspaper coverage, coverage of individual books, etc. So the coverage is out there, but probably hard to access online. But sources being hard to access is very different than sources being hard to find. And WP:AUTHOR allows notability to be demonstrated by a "well-known . . . body of work", which has been the standard applied by consensus to creators of works (like comic books) that are individually ephemeral but collectively noteworthy. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: And if there was an actual "well-known body of work" that would be another thing. If you can cite any sources suggesting that this line of local football club quiz books is deemed notable or well-known as a body - as opposed to local punters and fans being aware of the existence of their hometown version - please do so. Those radio interviews, on the BBC or otherwise, are specifically rejected by the very clause cited (and quoted) above: that of authors advertising or speaking about their own works.  Ravenswing  05:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply Comment. I do not understand the argument that you are making here. Are you really saying that if an author is frequently interviewed in national media, that those appearances are not evidence of notability? That makes no sense whatever to me. The language you quoted above does not deal with media interviews, but with "media re-prints" of promotional material. This addresses sources like PR Newswire and such which serve only as conduits for promotional material, newspapers (typically local ones) which fill space by repeating announcements verbatim, and other repackaging. It doesn't apply to original interviews. Whether particular claims the interviewee makes in interviews may be used in articles under WP:RS is a different question. And the lists, and sometimes reproduces, a nontrivial number of print articles about his books -- the most frequntly reported on books, by the way, deal with movies and TV, not local football clubs. The question is not whether the existing article cites adequate sources, but whether sufficient reliable sources exist to support an article. The ubiquity of the subject in the British news media indicates that they do. It will take time, and probably a local editor, to get the article into better shape. But thzat isn't a reason to delete the article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 06:16, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: These are not "interviews." They're booked promotional spots. Talk station morning shows do this all the time; "And this morning at 10 we'll have Ignatz Bartoziak, who'll tell us about his new book ..." Plainly you don't agree with my argument, but I'm at a loss as to what you are unable to understand, and doubly so at your rebuttal; I'd find it hard myself to rebut an argument I couldn't figure out.  Ravenswing  09:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rebutting everything is not necessary. We are trying to reach consensus here, not win an argument. If it helps though, I myself am getting confused as to why notability for books is being quoted like it is when this afd is about the author. The questions raised by WP:AUTHOR#3 (if read with the commas in place) do not rely on the inherited notability allowed by that policy, and the search engine test still leads me to believe that the subject is worthy of inclusion. ZabMilenko^{How am I driving?} 13:15, 22 July 2009 (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.