Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guy Finley

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 keep. KrakatoaKatie 05:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Finley

There is no assertion of notability except from its own sources. There are just about no external reviews of this subject, and a search reveals very little about this subject. On concern here is Wikipedia:Attribution and Wikipedia:Notability. This subject seems very obscure (not very well known) to be posted in an encyclopedia. --Snooziums 05:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Snooziums may be listing these as a response to another AFD, rather than on their particular merit or lack thereof. Snooziums, have you read WP:POINT?

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 17:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per my nomination. --Snooziums 05:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, there are no reliable sources provided in the entry. With a search, I see phrases like "Guy Finley is the best-selling author of...", but I can't find anything reliable to back this up. When did he appear on the list of bestsellers? I also see that he was signed to Motown Records; anything to back that up as well? The subject's own website, his publisher's website, and a blog aren't quite convincing. --Strangerer (Talk | Contribs) 11:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. You have got to be kidding me; this cut-and-paste AfD nominating is getting overripe. Finley has over 127 thousand Google hits, his website is a Google featured link, the article is extensively sourced, he has a weekly radio show, his book has an Amazon sales rank around 24,000 (which is pretty good, especially for a five year old New Age book). Can we please do some basic research? RGTraynor 16:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per RGTraynor and please do not do WP:POINT mass AFD nominations by cutting and pasting the same comments about supposed unsuccessful searches for sources ahen others can find the sources readily. Edison 17:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm not particularly convinced by the Google hits argument, as most of that is just people talking about him on their personal websites, not publications. The Google sponsored link was likely paid for by his website. The article isn't very extensively sourced, at least not to multiple independent reliable third-party publications. The book sales is the main thing to be clarified for me. --Strangerer (Talk | Contribs) 17:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- From WP:BIO: "Notability can be determined by ... a large fan base, fan listing, or "cult" following." 127,000 hits of nothing but people talking about this guy on their blogs is a considerable cult following; we've passed Youtube "entertainers" with a tenth that much buzz. On his book sales alone he passes WP:BIO; there's the one book with an Amazon sales rank of 24,000. The next one in line is around 31,000, the next 72,000, the next 125,000; a lot of current authors have articles with poorer numbers. RGTraynor 18:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hmm, well alright. A large fan base, fan listing, or "cult" following certainly does seem to fit the description of this individual. Weak keep, although it would make me happier to see better sources. --Strangerer (Talk | Contribs) 19:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep I think it is a useful exercise evaluating the respective strengths of these articles. Some are N, others not. The comparison clarifies the distinctions.DGG 00:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep for the reasons listed above by RGTraynor. There are a lot more obscure individuals on Wikipedia who seem to have passed the "notability" test.--JayJasper 13:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per RGTraynor. --JustJimDandy 17:34, 16 March 2007 (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.