Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Savio

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. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 16:57, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Savio

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

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

I have no idea how this passed AfC at all. Neither Battle For Forever or Idiots in the Machine have any SIGCOV, awards, or reviews. He clearly fails both the GNG and WP:AUTHOR. All three were created by SPAs. PK650 (talk) 20:19, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PK650 (talk) 20:19, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. PK650 (talk) 20:19, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:23, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:24, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:27, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:27, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:28, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP An WP:AUTHOR is known for his work. Being a bestselling writer makes him notable according to the relevant subject specific guidelines. Dream Focus 20:36, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the books should be included as well. Probably delete all, as claims of notability are not sourced. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:14, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle For Forever and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Idiots in the Machine. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:15, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Best Selling AUTHOR makes is notable. twerk000 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:27, 8 April 2020 (UTC) — twerk000 (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Kingshowman (talk • contribs). [reply]

Please note the above Keep vote by twerk000 is from an account that has been blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry. --Kbabej (talk) 23:24, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Struck. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 03:40, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Simply claiming to be a bestselling author doesn't cut it. Bestseller lists can also be gamed and don't constitute notability any more than social media followers. I do not see any policy based reason to keep the article. b uidhe 23:30, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. Most of the sources are not about the subject; they're either his own website or just mention him. Source #1 is his own website. Sources #2-5 are about a convicted murderer who used to live with the subject; see WP:NOTINHERITED. #5 only mentions him. That leaves 6-8, which are about his spec scripts (perhaps notable, but I don't think it passes GNG). Then #9, which, again, only mentions the subjects. It adds up to a lot of nothing. --Kbabej (talk) 23:31, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:00, 14 April 2020 (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.