Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Goulstone

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. --Oxymoron⁸³ 12:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Goulstone

lack of sources and seems to breach WP:BIO and WP:RS especially as books listed are believed self-published BlackJack | ^{talk page} 14:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - looks like a resumé. Jonathan (talk • contribs • complain?) 16:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability not established and "facts" appear not verified. If he is notable, then any article on him would have to be written from scratch, because this is valueless as it stands. Johnlp (talk) 19:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC) Expanded a little, but vote remains the same. Johnlp (talk) 02:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. Google Books and Google Scholar hits for this person's name along with 'cricket' look surprisingly promising.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 19:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Note what you say but Google hits do not prove notability. Most of the hits are WP-related in any case and you only need to scroll one page before you find Richard Goulstone, Phil Goulstone, etc. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 20:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. We are here to debate whether the subject is notable, not the quality of his books. Any review by a subject expert, whether good or bad, is evidence in favour of notability, not against it. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. You're right. I've withdrawn that part of the previous comment. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 13:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Two of his books, one on cricket and one on football, are available through Amazon UK, which I think just about makes him notable. JH (talk page) 14:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY ^talk _contribs 01:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No WP:RS establish any sort of notability. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 01:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Google convinces me that he is notable. (apropos nothing, we use him as a reference on another article, 1756 English cricket season). I've de-peacocked the article. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Not enough search volume to show..." - C/O Google Trends Lsingel (talk) 05:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment FWIW, availability on Amazon is meaningless. If you pay their commission, they'll take almost anything. DGG (talk) 12:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only 132 direct google hits in my search, most of which seems like wikipedia mirrors, the ones that aren't, are trivial mentions and no Reliable source found, nothing in google news, as for amazon, any author can place their book there, several of my old high school teachers wrote books that can be bought there, that doesn't make them notable. Secret ^account 15:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment I don't think Google News is a place to expect anything substantial: perhaps try Google Books and Google Scholar instead? And I'm not sure how "vanity" his book publications are, but he has also published in the peer-reviewed International Journal of the History of Sport. Having said which, I too have published books and peer-reviewed articles, but I hope to God nobody thinks I should be in a wikipedia article because of it. --Paularblaster (talk) 23:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Lquilter (talk) 23:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin. Please review the comments which Blackjack removed, as they have a bearing on the subject's notability in that one of his books was reviewed by a noted expert on the subject. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So he had a book reviewed by an expert, and badly as it happens, but don't overlook WP:RS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The bowling of a ghost (talk • contribs) 23:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not much evidence of notability here. --Crusio (talk) 10:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N (no significant 3rd party coverage), fails WP:BIO (no significant awards or contributions) Teleomatic (talk) 14:19, 12 January 2008 (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.