Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph sweet

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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. Protonk (talk) 17:41, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph sweet

Joseph sweet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Non-notable author whose works are all self-published described in an article sourced, per the author's own writing, from an personal interview with the author, which hardly counts as a reliable secondary source. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 03:38, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some sources of news on Joseph Sweet which led to this, are http://www.newswatch50.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=77E13949-66D5-42F6-A37E-5062C2888807&gsa=true for a story on the October book signing some information was obtained from news10now.com one such news article, complete with video interview, is http://news10now.com/Default.aspx?ArID=38751 The watertown daily times, watertowndailytimes.com has information in the archives of the first book publishing and of the last book signing. a press release for his first book, "Hell 101 can be viewed here, http://www.pr.com/press-release/62395 if any question is being made due to self publishing, see also "Marcus Maston" also listed on wikipedia, who was invited along to Joseph's book signing coming up on November 22nd, and has also self published his second and third books himself. Maston was also part of a book signing earlier this month at which Joseph Sweet, and children's book author Hope Irvin Marston was present. If self publishing is an issue, I think an exception should be made in this case. Because one chooses to self publish, does not mean their work is not noteworthy. And with the reviews and praise this author has received, it is obvious that his readers do not mind. Maston, a self published author, by his own admittance is listed here, and Stephen King: Very well known and legitimately published has been self published in the past as a matter of public record. Give this author his due. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Horrorfan7610 (talk • contribs) 04:07, 26 October 2008 (UTC) One last note of interest. Joseph's first book, both the paperback: # ISBN-10: 0615159397 # ISBN-13: 978-0615159393 and the hardcover: # ISBN-10: 0615163874 # ISBN-13: 978-0615163871 are both listed through Bowkers books in print as published by forsaken press, and are available through Ingram (one of the biggest book distributors in the U.S. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Horrorfan7610 (talk • contribs) 04:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Horrorfan7610 (talk • contribs)

It's not a very convincing public record, I must say, as a search of various library databases has turned up for me not a single record showing any of the books listed nor even its author--and that includes the US depository Library of Congress, the British Library, and Worldcat.org. If there's a single library in the entire world which holds any copies of any of Sweet's books, there's no record I can find. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 09:42, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Links have been added to some reliable third party sources, and a simple search on yahoo, google, and msn.com, all bring quite a lot of results. Someone being "notable," does not necessarily mean "world-wide" knowledge of that person. And a search on bookfinder.com, and bookfinder4u.com both show results, as well as a simple search for any store online that sells books. They all carry his first book. What else is needed to show that there is genuine, building public interest for this writer. And as for personal advert, that would only be the case if the author himself made this page, which I think is very obviously not the case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.255.40.19 (talk) 05:35, 26 October 2008 (UTC) — 71.255.40.19 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Do Not Delete

As per Wikipedia definition of Notable "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published[3] secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,[4] and independent of the subject.[5]"

It seems as though three separate news media sources are secondary, reliable and not related to the source. --Horrorfan7610 (talk) 05:58, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boldface !vote stricken; you get only one, Horrorfan. Deor (talk) 12:28, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Continued argument to keep

If you don't like the way it's written, rewrite it to suit you. For a first entry, I don't think it's that bad. It's not an autobiography. I think if it were, it would be a great deal more biased. For instance. I could have written about how much I personally liked his books, having read the first two. I left that out, not stating my own personal feelings at all. The public stigma on self publishing is well known. It's very easy to know an "Awful Lot about someone" when you spent two weeks talking via email, and pursuing every link. for other authors who are self published and have pages on wikipedia, please see Margaret Atwood, William Blake, Lord Byron, Stephen Crane, e.e. cummings, Alexander Dumas, T.S. Eliot, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Hardy, Nathaniel Hawthorne, Ernest Hemingway, Stephen King, Rudyard Kipling, Louis L'Amour, D.H. Lawrence, Edgar Allen Poe, Mark Twain, Walt Whitman, and Virginia Woolf, along with many many others. listed with his own page also, is another author from the same area, already mentions in my previous argument who chose to self publish as well. So I think we've heard enough "he isn't published" argument. can you come up with some better reason? I am preparing to put up my second article on here. I'm just waiting on the results of this one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Horrorfan7610 (talk • contribs) 14:23, 26 October 2008 (UTC) --Horrorfan7610 (talk) 14:56, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vote struck out -- one vote per editor please.
Every author listed above may have initially been self-published, but they all achieved sufficient success to become well-known and widely published. This is possible with the passage of time, and in time, Mr. Sweet may also achieve such notability, but not yet. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is possible for a self-published author to be notable, but it is very rare indeed and takes very reliable sourcing of notability from major publications. Stories in home-town newspapers are not sufficient for this. We'd want at least reviews in nationally known sources, & probably best-seller status, or major awards. DGG (talk) 01:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe News watch 50, News10now.com, and fox 7 and 28 are pretty reliable sources. and to be featured on all three is not something that is achieved merely by publishing a book. There has to be enough interest publicly in the work, and also, an independent blog that reviews hundreds of books per year as a matter of record is hardly biased or unreliable. It should be more reliable in the sense that they have no connection with the writer, and no reason with which to lie. Blogs are becoming the new source of news, like it or not. Not to mention a fan site, created by a fan in Sweden? How often does that happen to an unknown, non-notable author? you can check it out at fanpop.com by searching for Joseph Sweet. Someone on the other side of the world heard of this guy, bought his books, and his music by the way,having done a review of his CD also at associatedcontent. and thought it was so good that they built a fan site. I believe that I have stated a pretty strong case as to why this author is notable. In fact, I believe he will continue to grow more notable as time passes. Now I have to go fight for my other article on another author, so if you'll excuse me... --Horrorfan7610 (talk) 05:12, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vote struck out- duplicate
  • Continued argument to keep

So you admit, that there is an argument, if weak, that this author is notable? It's beginning to seem to me that there is so much argument against this author, not because he's not notable but because you guys are jealous that I'm trying to get him listed on wikipedia and no one is listing you. If this makes you feel unimportant in any way, that was not the intention. But if we can get past your insecurities, I think we can agree that this author deserves a spot. This author also has a book signing on November 22nd at Borders Books and Music. It's one of the biggest book store chains in the U.S. They don't host book signings unless they know the books will sell, because they purchase all of the books in advance for the signing. --Horrorfan7610 (talk) 18:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ad hominem attacks are really not appropriate in this forum. It is unlikely that anyone involved in this discussion is also an author who is jealous of Mr. Sweet's article. The point is that notability is established by SIGNIFICANT coverage(once again, please review the guidelines at WP:BIO). The coverage at NewsWatch50 contains a brief mention of his appearance at an event with other authors. The article at News10Now is somewhat more substantial, but is still little more than a local interest piece, containing no review of Mr. Sweet's books themselves. And press releases almost never count as reliable sources, as they are almost always self-published. Provide significant, non-trivial coverage, if any is available. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And stop striking out my arguments. They aren't individual votes, and they aren't duplicates. Each one says something different. This is a debate. Usually in debates the person, or persons attempting to argue their case tends to go back and forth with the people arguing against them. So I have every right to argue against what each person says, if I feel it helps my case. Stop being biased, and trying to belittle my argument.--Horrorfan7610 (talk) 18:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not an attempt to belittle your argument, but rather a following of protocol. Each Keep or Delete is regarded as a vote. Please use Comment unless you want to change your original vote, in which case you need to strikethrough your original vote. Thanks. Stealthound (talk) 00:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • More argument to keep Wikipedia rules state that self published sources can be used, and also says that using News sources is acceptable. It also mentions that News sources are considered to be reliable. Blogs are listed under Notes and references on the same page.

So let's summarize the sources here.. We have a blog that reviews hundreds of books per year. We have Three reputable news channels. We have a fan site put up by a fan. Reviews on Associated content by someone who has reviewed hundreds of products, music and writings, without bias. And Borders which its wikipedia article claims, is "the second-largest bookstore chain in the United States" is not only carrying the books, but hosting book signings. What more do we need here? Wikipedia's rules put this just within acceptable bounds as far as i can see. Please also search Marcus Mastin on here. He also is self published, lives in the same area, has about the same amount of press, and is listed on wikipedia. As I'm sure, are many others who meet the same guidelines as Joseph Sweet.--Horrorfan7610 (talk) 21:44, 28 October 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Joseph_sweet&oldid=1069994400"