Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tony Morgan

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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 00:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Morgan

Non-notable pastor. BJ^Talk 19:30, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, pastor has co authored books which would make them notable. Article should be improved and sources added, however person is notable.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 19:35, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How does he meet WP:AUTHOR? Writing books doesn't make you notable. BJ^Talk 19:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He is a published author, his books are sold in major retailers such as target[[1]], amazon[[2]] and barnes and noble[[3]].While there is not a lot of newspaper coverage his name is fairly splattered all over the religous sites. that seems to be 3 of 5 of those articles under wp:author Hell In A Bucket (talk) 19:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While being available at B&N or Amazon doesn't make someone notable to me, selling pretty well on them does point that way. All 3 books rank reasonable well on Amazon, including the book Simply Strategic Volunteers, which ranks in the top 50 in 3 different categories on Amazon. So I'm going to lean towards the keep. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Well, the only assertion of notability is his published works. None of the criteria on WP:AUTHOR translates into "ranked in the top 50" on Amazon. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 01:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Niteshift36. Str8cash (talk) 02:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no assertion on the four points of WP:AUTHOR, and no assertion to the primary criterion. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 02:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Niteshift36. Minimal notability. JJL (talk) 02:41, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ranks well below 100,000 in overall sales at Amazon for each of his books, and there is a lack of meaningful review for them. These books fail WP:BK, meaning their author does not derive standing from those. Outside of that, no independent notability. Ray^Talk 07:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If: I guess I would tend to consider the above comment,

"his name is fairly splattered all over the religous sites" if it reasonably depicts his coverage. Selling well doesn't provide information for an article even if it suggests he is notable- what can you put in the article except that he sells so many books if you need sources from which to derive content? Unless you want to label all the religious sites frivolous or irrelevant, it would seem they are reliable sources about themselves if they have more editorial oversight than a blog and more than a few readers would suggest notable. Is there a specific wiki policy that says CNN has to mention them or even an essay on frivolous mention/sites? Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 10:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Simply being a published author (or in this case, co-author) does not make someone notable, and the sales figures of his books would have to be much higher to suggest notability in themselves. (Simply Strategic Volunteers has a current sales ranking of #175,931 on Amazon and is in 48 libraries on WorldCat. For comparison, The Purpose Driven Church ranks #8,923 on Amazon and is in 862 WorldCat libraries.) Coverage by major religious websites might provide the basis for an article, but my searches are turning up only articles written by the subject and personal blogs. I'm willing to reconsider my viewpoint if someone can point to better sources. EALacey (talk) 11:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no coverage anywhere. Noisalt (talk) 19:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominated and noting that there is no real independent notability. Crafty (talk) 21:27, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing notable to see here. JBsupreme (talk) 23:44, 2 August 2009 (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.