Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derek White (writer)

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. ✗plicit 11:35, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Derek White (writer)

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

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Derek White (writer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

I couldn't establish that he meets WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG. Please also see Talk:Derek White (writer), where someone claiming to be Derek White repeatedly asks for it to be deleted. Boleyn (talk) 08:26, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:05, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:05, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, delete, but not because of the statements on the talk-page. We're allowed to take subjects' wishes into consideration in cases of very-marginal notability, but (a) have to be cautious about whether the talk-page posts are really from White, and (b) if a person is definitely notable, then unfortunately they don't get a say on whether they have an article. Even if your name is notable for a desire to be anonymous (as appears to be White's philosophical aim), you can't stop WP from saying so (which rather undermines the whole anonymity thing). But in White's case, he seems genuinely non-notable. His publications are via a publisher that he set up, and are therefore self-published. I can't find any decent secondary source reviews, only a few slightly weird blogs and the usual goodreads/amazon stuff (though it's a bit tricky with a fairly common name like this). Elemimele (talk) 12:34, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

• Delete per Elemimele's explanation. It's always nice when an article subject's (presumed) wishes align with Wikipedia's policies. Gildir (talk) 21:58, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

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.