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. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 22:37, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Peter J. Wacks[edit]

Peter J. Wacks (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)

Fails WP:GNG, WP:AUTHOR at "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors" - no significant coverage, reviews - no mainstream media cited and none found on search. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:24, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and United States of America. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:24, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:04, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete : fails GNG and WP:Author as nominator stated. Samanthany (talk) 21:07, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! New editor here, not really sure how things work, please be patient with me, I provided more references that I think are og higher value, (IMDb, good reads and even a .org website, I hope this is enough for you to at least delay the deleting while I'm getting more relevant references, he's my favourite writer, I allways go to get his signatures when he's on a convention, and it's my favourite IP, not having him on wikipedia, especially when there are many other wiki pages pointing to his page doesn't make much sense to me, if anytinhg needs to be changed I would love to do it with your guidance. Emanuelrodriguez232 (talk) 06:06, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• • Hi Emanuelrodriguez232! Unfortunately sites like IMDb aren't considered reliable, because anyone can add information. Goodreads also isn't a good indicator of notability, because anyone can add a book if they have an account. You should check out WP:Reliable sources which might help you figure out what sources to look for. BuySomeApples (talk) 21:17, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have rewritten this article and included a review of a short story and an interview. There are also articles about him and his Cyberpunk CCG in Inquest (2004), Games Quarterly (2004), and Scrye (2003). I am trying to find copies of these magazines in order to add sources to the article. Guinness323 (talk) 18:10, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I may lean Keep based on Guinness323's finds, but failing that I think we can give a new editor working in good faith another chance and move to draft so that they can have another chance to work on it. BOZ (talk) 21:42, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would agree that moving it to Draft for now would be a good step until further sources can be found.Guinness323 (talk) 23:01, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd support that outcome. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:13, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

      Hello again! I have also rewritten this article, found some sources from the WP:GREL list, like the TVGuide.com website, removed some pararaphs that could not be proven by a reliable source and did other small changes, I really hope is up to standards, If it's not please direct me to the unsupported claims and refferences and I'll delete them and peraps just keep the most reliable parts. Emanuelrodriguez232 (talk) 07:00, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Hello again! I have also rewritten this article, found some sources from the WP:GREL list, like the TVGuide.com website, removed some pararaphs that could not be proven by a reliable source and did other small changes, I really hope is up to standards, If it's not please direct me to the unsupported claims and refferences and I'll delete them and peraps just keep the most reliable parts Emanuelrodriguez232 (talk) 14:12, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow feedback based on the rewrites.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 17:15, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep Article badly needs a rewrite. I find this source that seems reliable [1] and a few listings on tor.com (science fiction tor, not Tor the onion router). With some of the sources used, I think it's just barely above notable. Oaktree b (talk) 23:36, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I included the sources you presented, hope it heps somehow... Quick Question... I'm not versed on how thigns work around here, should only one editor be in responsible for the rewriting or improoving on a given page? Emanuelrodriguez232 (talk) 23:37, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Emanuelrodriguez232: no, every aspect of Wikipedia is collaborative. Even in draft-space, an article can be edited by any editor who feels they can make a useful contribution. If you are busy working on an article and someone else working at the same time would be disruptive, you can add the template {{under construction}} while you're working. This will display a message that the article is currently being edited. Elemimele (talk) 11:39, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  oh, and if you get stuck on any aspect of editing, the Wikipedia:Teahouse is a very friendly place to ask. Elemimele (talk) 11:44, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Didn't know that! Thank you! For the moment I would like for people to vote, I think the page is definitely in a better shape than in the beginning in terms of complying with GNG and WP: Author, I could be wrong tho. And if so I would love to keep receiving feedback as I received before Emanuelrodriguez232 (talk) 15:48, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 11:15, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm afraid I have to argue for Delete but hope that the original contributor will keep a copy and possibly keep working on it. I looked up this author in various places, like Publishers Weekly, Worldcat, etc. I didn't go through the entire bibliography, but without more than a title it is hard to evaluate his oeurve. Some works that I did find appeared to be self-published (e.g. Smashwords) or "buddy published" like the Fiction River magazine works (which do not seem to have either ISBNs nor ISSNs, which leaves them outside of publishing as we define it). The Heroes Reborn ebook/audio series does have an ISBN but I can't find any trace of it other than records in 2 German libraries - no reviews. That he was a finalist for an award obviously is interesting but is of much less notability than having won an award. I looked up some books on Amazon (audio books) and the reviews were almost all ones that were provided in exchange for a free copy of the book. My analysis is that this is an active author whose work I would call "indie". If someone can find independent reviews (in journals, newspapers, magazines) then he could be worthy of a Wikipedia page. Lamona (talk) 01:18, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Hey there! Thank you so much for the feedback, been waiting for more people to join the conversation, I'm a beginner and this comment gave me a lot of information on what I can do now.

  First, In my opinion as a beginner contributor, I think there's still grounds to keep the article after modifications, It's true that finding ISBNs or ISSNs for all of his work is hard but with a bit more research is easily findable, personally, I did not knew that ISBNs and/or ISSNs were required, That is why sources containing these numbers are not listed in the article, I'll add the sources I found for them in a few moments, and the ones that prove to be hard to find the ISBNs and ISSNs, will be deleted from the page.

  Once this being corrected and adding reviews from magazines I hope there should not be a probleem to keep.

  Secondly, I think that there is the whole aspect of him being a game developer, and his work earning it's own notability and earning also it's own Wikipedia page, that was not mentioned in your argument for deletion.

  I really don't know much how to do some of these things right or how more versed editors think about these thigs tho, it seems to fulfill the requirements for some, and not for others. Emanuelrodriguez232 (talk) 17:22, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Article updated

  Hey people here is an update on the content:

  - I placed every ISBN I could find, so every book in the new bibliography is properly numbered.

  - I found and included new references from more reputable sources like TV insider

  - also added references from magazines like, Locus Magazine, and the RPG-Focused magazine: GMS Magazine

  - And I also found some new references for more award finalist spots earned and award wins.

  Happily waiting for your Feedback :D Emanuelrodriguez232 (talk) 23:24, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:SIGCOV. The article is entirely sourced to either primary sources or to sources that lack independence from the subject such as vendor or publisher websites with a financial interest in selling Wacks's books. The one review we have is from a non-notable blog/podcast without any clear editorial oversight. As such, not a single source used in the article counts as independent significant coverage. A search for coverage likewise came up empty, aside from the one source from Inverse magazine from above. However, we require a minimum of three sources to meet our notability standards. 4meter4 (talk) 17:59, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per 4meter4. Almost all of sourcing provided is just not reliable enough to establish notability. It would also appear that articles on this subject have previously been deleted under Peter Wacks, which is now WP:SALTed and I guess this namespace should be as well if the outcome is ultimately a deletion. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:18, 28 June 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.