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. Vanamonde (talk) 20:22, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Pitts[edit]

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Tom Pitts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article which was draftified almost a year ago at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Pitts, and then got moved back into mainspace again in March of this year without any discernible improvement in the sourcing over what wasn't good enough last time. Ten of the 12 footnotes here are blogs, podcasts or primary sources that are not valid support for notability at all -- and of the two that are acceptable reliable sources, one (LA Weekly) just contains a single glancing namecheck of his existence in an article about somebody else, while the other (SF Weekly) is a Q&A interview in which he's speaking about himself rather than being written about in the third person by other people. All of which means that exactly zero of the sources here bolster his notability at all. Bearcat (talk) 20:50, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:58, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:58, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:58, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:58, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for making me aware of this action. First, I'd like to note that since the original submission was "draftified," there has been considerable change. The original submission did rely on blog material, but that was removed in favor of independent higher-level sourcing. In particular, references 4, 6, and 7-10 are not blogs. They are independent reviews from reputable websites." Rory1262 (talk) 11:00, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Big Thrill, Litreactor, Fjords, New York Journal of Books and Mysterious Book Report are not reliable sources for establishing the notability of a writer. Bearcat (talk) 18:30, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In what respects are they wanting, please? I welcome other voices as well, since these sources were previously deemed acceptable. Rory1262 (talk) 21:49, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In respect of being blogs published on WordPress, rather than established publications with reputations for being reliable. In respect of LitReactor describing itself as an "interactive online community", thus failing our rule against user-generated sourcing; in respect of The Big Thrill describing itself as "a way for successful, bestselling authors to help debut and midlist authors advance their careers", i.e. an advertorial PR blog where writers can more or less "buy" their own coverage rather than getting it organically; in respect of New York Journal of Books feeling the need to point out in its own mission statement that "our catalog of reviews has far more in common with respected print reviews than with any other online-only review" — which is basically the Wikipedia referencing equivalent of a guy pointing out that he's "very good looking" in a personals ad or a politician pointing out that he's a "very stable genius": if you have to explicitly make the statement about how reliable or hot or smart or stable you are yourself, because people aren't organically seeing you as reliable or hot or smart or stable on their own, then you're inherently not what you say you are. Bearcat (talk) 18:49, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I also have a question about process, please. This article was previously accepted by someone with authority who deemed the sources sufficient. Has that person been notified? If not, I'd like to suggest that they be involved as well. Do some editors have more authority than others? Can a decision to reverse acceptance be launched unilaterally? Thank you. Rory1262 (talk) 11:05, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Other voices welcomed here too, in addition to response from the nominator. Rory1262 (talk) 21:49, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you’ll excuse me, may I again request a little more on the level that constitutes “reliable” and why sources that were previously deemed adequate are now apparently below the bar? Rory1262 (talk) 17:47, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You can have a look at WP:Identifying reliable sources. The basic concept is that the reliable source is independent (unrelated to the subject), and the writing has to meet some sort of editing standard, e.g. from the publisher of a book, or editors of a newspaper. This excludes interviews, where the subject is talking about themselves, blogs, social media, etc. Also, the coverage in the source has to be substantial, say a paragraph at least, not just a mention of the subject's name. None of the current sources in the article meet these criteria. Hope this helps. Curiocurio (talk) 18:10, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What’s the timetable, please? Whatever the final decision is, may I please request that the entry be “draftified” again, rather than deleted, pending the appearance of firmer support? Rory1262 (talk) 19:08, 7 October 2018 (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.
More