Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Perry D Cox

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Perry D Cox

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

Doesn't seem notable, single-ref essay, main contributor is an SPA, etc. Note: has been PRODded before, but removed without explanation. :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 21:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There is a lot of cruft that needs to be cleaned from this article, but it does make some significant assertions of notability--for example the coverage of his work in Us and Forbes. There is a significant coterie of influential, notable Beatles experts who are primarily self-published (see, for example, Allan Kozin, "A Book Publisher, Beatlemaniacs? Why Don't You Do It on Your Own?", New York Times, December 26, 2006). However, Cox isn't mentioned in that NYT article and I am not sure that the 2 older articles mentioned above are enough to get him over the hump, WP:N-wise. Some additional reviews or coverage of him or his work in mainstream media might do it, though, if such could be found.--Arxiloxos (talk) 01:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted a notice of this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Beatles. --Arxiloxos (talk) 06:26, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As written, a possible speedy as G11, promotional. It's possible an article could be written, but Idon't know the subject well enough to attempt it. I'd suggest starting over. DGG ( talk ) 18:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject (and as far as I can tell, his books) lacks significant coverage in reliable sources.--Michig (talk) 13:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retain. I think this subject is worthy of being retained in Wikipedia. It's obvious has established himself in the field of Beatles collectibles. I don't feel he should be deleted because many of his sources were prior to the digital age leaving him no choice but to rely on printed material for many of his verification sources. Forbes magazine and many others along with his many published works over the years should well justify his being here. 3 of his published books were published by Ballantine/Random House in New York City. No small feat there. Of his 8 books, only 3 were self published.Bingbing4321 (talk) 01:46, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— Bingbing4321 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep This Article My vote is to keep this page. One of the great things about our community is the fact that entrepreneurs like this subject can have a place where hard work and dedication in fields other than the USA today mainstream have a place to be recognized. I'm not suggesting we allow "the cleanest janitor" or "fastest cab drivers" to be posted here, but if authors of certain fields with this many credits and works to his name can't be appreciated here, then we find ourselves sticking with "Lincoln" and "Kennedy" text like the printed chronicles and tomes of old. I should hope that if I dedicated myself to this much fine work, there would be a place where people of like interests could learn of it.Kyderby4321 (talk) 02:38, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— Kyderby4321 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Retain. Since Wikipedia covers collectibles, since the Beatles are widely collected, since investors in Beatles records often make the news, and since Beatles collecting is already mentioned in Wikipedia as noteworthy, the principal author of the Beatles Price Guide is deserving of his own feature. Since Wikipedia has a feature on Overstreet (albeit a stub) -- one which is not being targeted for deletion despite citing no sources, Perry D. Cox deserves a similar article. British author Mark Lewisohn has only a few major books to his credit (along with interviews, forewords, and articles), but he is certainly noteworthy. Likewise Bruce Spizer, who often works with Cox, is noteworthy as a Beatles author. For almost 30 years, Cox's price guides have been the standard both for information about Beatles records, and for identifying counterfeits, and for pricing. He is referenced by hundreds of ads on eBay (that are not his own). Namralos (talk) 02:47, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do not omit I see this is a valid article. Indeed, a few more modern sources would be nice, but as mentioned above, the subject of this article has clearly been writing and heavily involved with the subject for nearly 30 years. Perhaps, more than any other individual that I can think of after reading here. As such, I don't see this article as 'self promotion" either since he offers nothing for sale here. No links for purchases. It's a fine line between "self promotion" and "establishing notable qualification". If the article were just touting where to buy products, etc.., that would be one thing, but this is a case where I feel the article is establishing credibility and notability. I feel this page should be a welcome resource for Wikipedia.Pdjbb (talk) 03:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Promotional article about a non-notable figure. I can't find any sources on this gentleman that qualify under WP:N Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 18:09, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retain -This subject is actually very notable in his field. A Google search brings up many references to his works. His name suffers from being the same as the TV show "Scrubs" character so the information by be harder to locate because of that, but it is there to be found and verified.Bingbing4321 (talk) 18:29, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— Bingbing4321 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep - I have cleaned out the worst of the unsourced hype. In his field this guy seems notable enough. I think that the references, taken together, are sufficient to meet WP:GNG. Bridgeplayer (talk) 17:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

if kept, there will be a good more to remove : excessive use of his name (18 time in he article, not counting the notes & bibliography); paragraphs giving general explanation of autograph collecting and similar subjects serving to build up his importance; tributes to him on blog pages or DVD jackets; at least three completely unsourced paragraphs claiming him an expert in one or another facet. It is this sort of material that characterizes an article as promotional. DGG ( talk ) 02:34, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have reduced the number of Cox's to 11 in the body of the article and removed two more instances of unsourced claims to be an expert. I think further editorial work is better done by someone with knowledge of the field. Bridgeplayer (talk) 18:19, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the lack of reliable sources. After reviewing most of the sources in the article, I have been unable to find nontrivial coverage in reliable sources. The sources are mostly unreliable/primary or don't even mention the subject in the body of the article (there is a brief mention in the caption of a picture). I haven't been able to find evidence that the subject passes Wikipedia:Notability. Because most of the article is cited to passing mentions or to articles that don't mention the subject, Wikipedia:Verifiability is violated.
If, in the future, nontrivial coverage in reliable sources of this person can be found, I would support recreation. Cunard (talk) 23:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My gut says Keep. Weak, but still keep it. Nolelover 01:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a policy-based reason for keeping the article. Cunard (talk) 01:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I say that because I'm not sure how many of the sources are reliable ones. The article does appear to be fairly neutral, and the man notable within his field though, so I say weak keep. That better? Nolelover 02:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Many of the sources provided in the article are reliable (e.g. links to the newspaper clippings). However, of the ones I looked at, none provided significant coverage of the subject. Have any of the sources you looked at provided significant coverage of Perry D Cox? Cunard (talk) 02:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the sense that the NY Times hsn't done a full-page story on him - no. However, most of the article, specifically when you look at it sentence by sentence, instead of the whole thing at one time, is sourced reliably, and that's why I would keep it. "Significant coverage" is very subjective. For a guy like this, I'm surprised there's this much. Nolelover 14:31, 2 September 2010 (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.