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. Clear consensus to delete as non-notable (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:10, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Bodenham - Thriller Writer

[edit]

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

I don't think the subject is notable. I can't find any sources specifically about him apart from sites selling his book (such as amazon), and so fails WP:GNG. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 14:27, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can't find any reviews in major newspapers/magazines, although there's a local press story[1], a couple of articles in special-interest publications[2][3] and blogs/personal sites[4][5]. He claims to have been interviewed by BBC twice, at least one of which is local radio, but he doesn't give specifics/transcripts.[6][7] Publication is via a small, new e-book press but not a vanity company[8][9]. My current thought is not quite notable, but 1 or 2 good sources, or more info on the BBC appearances, could establish notability. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:04, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References have now been added to the article. Unfortunately, after seven days, the two BBC Radio interviews mentioned above are removed from the BBC iPlayer, so the links to the interviews on the author's website are no longer active. The author was interviewed by both BBC Radio Nottingham and Leicester in January 2012 in connection with his novel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VCcomments (talk • contribs) 21:11, 30 May 2012 (UTC) — VCcomments (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The majority of the references you've added are sourced to the subject's website, which is inappropriate (even if they are copies of material from elsewhere), and so I have removed them. Of the two that remain, both are database-style sources, and only one of them is actually about the author (the other is about his book). In fact, even the sources you added from the subject's website were about the book rather than the author. The subject simply isn't notable. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 08:18, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:AUTHOR he is notable if he "has created ... a significant or well-known work ... that has been the subject of ... multiple independent periodical articles or reviews", so reviews/articles about the book are absolutely relevant. I've edited the page to add references and get what was there in a proper format. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:54, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that guideline states that having a single work the subject of several reviews "probably" denotes notability. In this fella's case, I don't think he is notable. Apart from getting a book published he's done nothing notable, and his book isn't "well known" as you claim it is. Having a book on a few vastly broad review sites doesn't make him notable, especially as the book isn't well known. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 10:39, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What's your definition of "well-known"? Wikipedia's appears to be that a book is well-known if it's widely reviewed or receives other significant coverage. Your definition seems to be dangerously close to "what I've heard of". --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:43, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't wikilawyer this - I'm not saying that his book isn't notable, but don't try to argue that just because his book establishes a bare minimum of notability through a few review sites that then automatically confers notability on its author. JK Rowling is notable because her books are well known to the layman. The same could be said of JRR Tolkien or even Dan Brown. This author's book does not fall into that category. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 10:50, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Maybe a case of WP:TOOSOON. He has published one book, last year, and neither he nor it have received significant coverage that I could find. (All the Google News hits I could find for Martin Bodenham involve a football referee.) Simply being a published author does not satisfy WP:AUTHOR. --MelanieN (talk) 23:48, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. No !vote from me right now, but I wanted to suggest that if kept, the article should probably be moved to Martin Bodenham (writer), per WP's usual convention for titles. Also, it would be appropriate to mention at Martin Bodenham that an article about the writer with the same name exists. Dawn Bard (talk) 15:37, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:48, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unable to find reliable, secondary sources which evidence notability under WP:BASIC or WP:AUTHOR. Tried the usual range of Google searches as well as Highbeam. I wasn't able to find evidence that the author is even mentioned in WorldCat, which would seem a fairly strong statement of non-notability (at least with respect to being an author). --j⚛e decker ^talk 16:01, 22 June 2012 (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.