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 speedy delete per WP:CSD#G12 as a copyvio. Kinu ^t/_c 15:20, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Michael G. Manning[edit]

Michael G. Manning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Semi-advertorialized article about a writer, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:AUTHOR. As always, writers are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, but must show some externally validated evidence of their significance (e.g. notable literary awards, critical attention, etc.) -- but this offers nothing of the sort, and instead two of the three footnotes are of the "book circularly verifying its own existence via its own publisher or an online bookstore" variety, which is not support for notability at all, and the only one that actually comes from a media outlet is a 32-word blurb about one short story in an anthology, which isn't enough media coverage to get him over WP:GNG all by itself.
Note also that an article about his book series was deleted by AFD last year for also not backing up its existence with any reliably sourced evidence of notability either, and the creator has directly stated on their own user talk page that they "collaborated" with the subject in writing this -- which means it's a conflict of interest violation.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have much, much better sourcing than this. You don't make a writer notable enough for Wikipedia by citing his work to itself as proof that it exists, you make a writer notable enough for Wikipedia by citing his work to third-party media coverage about his work as proof that it got GNG-building external attention. Bearcat (talk) 15:01, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 15:01, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:11, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per WP:G12; entire article is a copyvio from [1]. Ovinus (talk) 15:19, 1 October 2022 (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.