Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rhys Knight

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. Sandstein 16:48, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rhys Knight

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

Non-notable, no reliable secondary sources, appears to be purely promotional in nature. Amsgearing (talk) 00:55, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Knight is an important figure in mental health and has been featured on radio and mentioned by Australian political figures. While these are difficult to cite as online sources, the encyclopedic relevance still remains. He is certainly relevant to the political scene, along with mental health treatment and as an author. I have added another reference and I'm sure others will continue to do so. Terristevens (talk 01:44, 16 May 2018 (UTC) — Terristevens (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

If he is cited on radio and by politicians then you should be able to find a reasonable amount of independent online media from those sources about him. Please add them to the article if you can find them, as there is nothing showing up that supports him crossing WP:BASIC or WP:ANYBIO NealeFamily (talk) 05:21, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:37, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:37, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:37, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Maxim article certainly looks loke very substantial cpverage pf him and his work. FloridaArmy (talk) 02:00, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Maxim "article" is a blurb. There's barely any text in it; most of it is just a selection from his book. Wikipedia requires "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." There's no "significant coverage" and the Maxim article is 1 source - I don't see "multiple reliable sources." Amsgearing (talk) 02:10, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, he's an author who is featured significantly in Australia and has been of interest for some time, including as a mental health advocate (non-medical) of some repute. There is certainly diverse enough coverage from national publications (cited) and is a relevant enough public figure to merit inclusion. Terristevens (talk) 02:18, 16 May 2018 (UTC) — Terristevens (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Respectfully, you already voted above, and all of your arguments don't absolve a subject of the need for significant coverage to merit an article. He just doesn't have any. The first two sources don't even qualify as reliable secondary sources. I searched for more, and I can't find any. Amsgearing (talk) 02:20, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is valid, and unbiased. Yours doesn't seem to be.The first article is taken from a national publicaton and Maxim is national with global presence. Terristevens (talk) 02:26, 16 May 2018 (UTC) — Terristevens (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

With all due respect, the opposite of what you said is true. You're a major contributor to this article and clearly not unbiased. I happened upon it while surfing wikipedia and noticed that there's very little material in reliable sources on the subject, so I'm about as unbiased as can be. You said "The first article is taken from a national publicaton" - bullshit. It's from something called intheblack.com, which appears to be a startup online publication attempting to make a name for itself as a website dedicated to ... something. There's no mentions of it in other publications anywhere. It's an island, and it's nowhere near the level of "reliable secondary source." So please stop with the hyperbole and attempts to paint Rhys Knight as someone who's received significant coverage. He's just not. Amsgearing (talk) 05:20, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're entitled to your opinion, as am I. Please tone down the language and I would ask you to remove the swearing; this is a debate, not a hostile discussionTerristevens (talk) 05:58, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

With the utmost respect towards you and your edits here, it's not an "opinion" that there's no reliable secondary coverage of this guy - it's a fact. It's also not an opinion that both of his "books" are self-published - they are. There's no publisher listed for "Litte White Helpers". It appears more and more obvious that this article is an attempt at self-promotion; that last bit, for the record, is just my opinion. Amsgearing (talk) 12:43, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete, obviously promotional (the link to buy his books at amazon is a dead giveaway); WP:TOOSOON. Jytdog (talk) 02:48, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, link deleted.Terristevens (talk) 02:55, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have searched and after removing his own sites, blogs, social media, and book selling sites, there is almost nothing left. There is seems to be nowhere near sufficient IRS WP:NEXIST to support WP:GNG. WP:TOOSOON perhaps. Aoziwe )(talk) 05:29, 16 May 2018 (UTC
Delete Terristevens Recommend rewriting the article by deleting the text box and picture, and changing to one line about the book he published and that he is a mental health advocate. Stating that will give you the presumed good intentions and people won't try to delete the article, as most people here have no idea what is notable in Austalia. As it stands right now you basically wrote your own argument for why it should be deleted by saying that his second book isn't published, so even the publishers don't think he's notable. ChalkDrawings33 (talk) 06:16, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, more than happy to do that if that's the best course of action.Terristevens (talk) 07:06, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There’s scarcely anything online about him, which for a current author is a clear indication that notability criteria aren’t met. But there’s this and it’s a copy of this article. I have no way of knowing whether the Wikipedia article came first (which would be fine) or whether the book review was done first (in which case we’d be dealing with a copyvio). Couldn’t find the review on archive sites. Schwede 66 15:44, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of notability. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 04:16, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing in NZ media to support notability NealeFamily (talk) 05:11, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet notability guidelines Shritwod (talk) 08:46, 22 May 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.