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 keep. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 10:26, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Scott L. Smith, Jr.[edit]

Scott L. Smith, Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Non notable author. Despite the plethora of references, there's nothing amounting to WP:GNG nor WP:NAUTHOR. One ref about him opening an office. One blog ref about a book he wrote. Wikipedia is not for advertising and promotion. Tagishsimon (talk) 16:54, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note also Wikipedia's policy WP:OZD. Tagishsimon is requesting speedy deletion for upwards of 20 pages per day. --Avemaria81 (talk) 14:11, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:07, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:07, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:07, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 17:10, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. This reads like a public relations page. There is no wide coverage and no reliable sources. It frankly reads like fluff to promote the subject. It does not meet standards for WP:GNG and fails WP:BIO and WP:NAUTHOR. I agree with the nom that Wikipedia is not the vehicle for a public relations effort to promote the subject. AuthorAuthor (talk) 21:57, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, AuthorAuthor. I just added tons more reliable sources with substantial coverage. Do you still believe "There is no wide coverage and no reliable sources"? Also, I'm not sure how to change the tone from it sounding like a public relations page - do you have some suggestions or advice for me? I would appreciate it. I'm new at this. --Avemaria81 (talk) 15:16, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per Bearian's sentiments, reliable sources have now been added and I have changed my !vote.

• Keep My vote is for keeping the page, for being notable. This is very discouraging. I worked hard on this article, but I understand this is part of the process. This morning I added several more citations to Smith's works, including WP:BASIC multiple reviews of his articles by the National Catholic Register, Catholicism.org, the Journal of the St. Benedict Center in New Hampshire, and the New Evangelists Monthly journal, as well as citations to his lectures and courses through the Diocese of Baton Rouge. These citations were in addition to the links I added to his radio and podcast interviews. I had also added citations of his works and legal career by multiple newspapers, the Pointe Coupee Banner and Catholic Commentator. Smith has written over ten books of fiction and non-fiction. He has written more books than what I found, but I think I added the most notable titles. There were already other author sites pointing to Smith due to at least one collaboration with author Brian J. Costello - the addition of this page is a logical extension. What more can I add? I'm definitely invested in seeing this page survive now. Thanks! Avemaria81 (talk) 19:11, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Policy points to WP:AUTHOR which this person does not seem to meet or even approach; and WP:GNG which, again, this author does not seem to meet or even approach. Not all authors - for obvious reasons - get wikipedia articles. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:26, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, policy begins with WP:BASIC. WP:BASIC provides a presumption of notability: "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." Smith meets this criteria, so he is presumed notable. To delete the page for lack of notability, this presumption must be overcome. To overcome the presumption of notability, WP:BASIC states that Smith "fall under exclusionary criteria". He does not. Presumption of notability stands. --Avemaria81 (talk) 13:39, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources do you believe meet the criteria of WP:BASIC? Please note that each source must meet all of the requirements of having significant coverage, being reliable, and being independent of the subject. And that there should be multiple such sources independent of each other. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:38, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I just added a bunch more that I found (makes you wonder why people are trying to delete this page, instead of improve it, right?): National Catholic Register, Aleteia, Catholicism.org, Big Pulpit, ChurchPop. These (a) multiple sources all have (b) significant coverage and are (c) reliable and (d) independent of the subject. --Avemaria81 (talk) 14:47, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The sourcing is not significant - meaning it is not broad, deep, and independent. The coverage in sources is either in passing, or in sources connected to certain elements of the Roman Catholic church (a 19-year old article from a local newspaper about several national merit scholars, links and reviews in hard-core blogs, etc.). If there were multiple reviews in weekly/monthly diocesan papers, then I would change my mind. Please ping me. Bearian (talk) 21:44, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per your request, Bearian, I just added another source from a weekly/monthly diocesan paper. There are even more "diocesan paper" sources in the Catholic Commentator archive I had previously included - are you asking for different dioceses or just multiple mentions? Also, I don't understand why the 3-4 references to Smith's articles in the National Catholic Register are not broad, deep, and independent. I've asked this before and no one will respond. Not only that, there are also other national and international - not just diocesan - sources like Aleteia and Catholicism.org, some of the world's largest Catholic sites. Thanks for the help, Bearian! --Avemaria81 (talk) 01:28, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:HEY. I am now satisfied that legitimate sources have covered this author. Bearian (talk) 21:25, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your feedback and support, Bearian! I kept trying to improve the page and was only receiving negative feedback until now. I really appreciate your help. --Avemaria81 (talk) 18:22, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Of the references currently in the article:
  • 1 (Catholic Commentator) is an article featuring several quotations from Mr. Smith. While this may indicate his prominence as a cultural commentator, it does not count towards the "significant independent coverage" requirement of the general notability guideline (that is, the article does not contain substantial information about Mr. Smith, apart from his own comments).
  • 2 (Catholic Community Radio) and 3 (Catholic Commentator): I believe these are two copies of the same article; again, the article contains quotations from Mr. Smith, but only a small amount of material about him.
  • 4 (Louisiana's Historic and Cultural Vistas) and 5 (WikiTree) are about Mr. Smith's ancestor and (as far as I can see) don't mention Mr. Smith.
  • 6 (The Oklahoman) includes Mr. Smith's name in a list of students who have won scholarships; this isn't substantial, in-depth coverage of Mr. Smith.
  • 7 (Holy Water Books) is a profile by the publisher of Mr. Smith's books. It's fine to use this sort of affiliated source for biographical facts, but it doesn't count towards the GNG because it isn't sufficiently independent.
  • 8 (Pointe Coupee Banner) is a newspaper article profiling Mr. Smith. This is significant, independent coverage in a reliably published source. Y
  • 9 (The Hidden Eucharist) is a blog post by Mr. Smith.
  • 10 (The Hidden Manna) doesn't mention Mr. Smith, so far as I can tell.
  • 11 (The Hidden Manna in The Lord of the Rings) is a blog post by Mr. Smith.
  • 12 (Elves of Valinor) doesn't mention Mr. Smith.
  • 13 (Lord of the Rings and the Eucharist) is a book by Mr. Smith.
  • 14 (EWTN Homeschool Connections) is a profile of Kevin O'Brien that (as far as I can see) doesn't mention Mr. Smith or his book.
  • 15, 17, 38 (Catholicism.org). Catholicism.org is the website of a canonically irregular Feeneyite group.[1] The local ordinary has told them to stop presenting themselves as Catholic.[2] I don't know whether a blog post on their website receives editorial oversight before publication (if not, it shouldn't be used in the biography of a living person, per WP:BLPSPS).
  • 16, 18, 20, 27 (NCR) are directory-type listings of recommended blog posts, including entries by Mr. Smith. This isn't significant biographical coverage.
  • 19, 29, 30 (Diocese of Baton Rouge) The URLs wouldn't load for me.
  • 21 and 22 (New Evangelists Monthly): a blog post aggregator featuring writing by Mr. Smith, not about him.
  • 23 (Aleteia) is an article by Mr. Smith.
  • 24 (Big Pulpit) includes various directory-type listings of recommended blog posts, including entries by Mr. Smith.
  • 25 (Catholic Exchange) is an article by Mr. Smith.
  • 26 (Citizenside.com) is an article that cites Mr. Smith's blog, but doesn't contain significant coverage of him or it.
  • 28 and 31 (ChurchPop) are articles by Mr. Smith.
  • 32 (Clarifying Catholicism) is an article by Mr. Smith.
  • 33 and 34 (Voyage Comics) are articles by Mr. Smith.
  • 35 and 37 (Catholic Nerds Podcast) is a podcast co-hosted by Mr. Smith.
  • 36 (The Station of the Cross) is a podcast episode on which Mr. Smith appears; it contains a brief introduction of Mr. Smith (as an author, award-winning blogger, and attorney), as well as interview comments by him.
  • 39 (ChristianHorror.com/LifeDate Magazine) is a review of one of Mr. Smith's books. ChristianHorror.com is one of Mr. Smith's websites. I was unable to confirm that the review originally ran in LifeDate.
    I looked for additional sources such as magazine profiles, news articles, or book reviews, and didn't find anything useful. Cheers, gnu57 23:35, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment- as per gnu57 above, I am concerned about the lack of independent (i.e. non-Christian) sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 09:10, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - as per WP:HEY, I think it now passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:51, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep after WP:HEY passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:23, 25 December 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.