Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Upton

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Due to lack of independant sources. CitiCat ♫ 04:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Charles Upton

Charles Upton (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Could very well be wrong, but can't find any serious evidence of notability. Seems to be your typical New Age fringe thinker, with works published by publishing houses specially devoted to the purpose of publication of New Age oddness. Part of a major walled garden that's built up around Category:Traditionalism, see Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard for more details. Moreschi Talk 16:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

  • weak keep -- seems to be reasonably notable, even if strictly within the field of New Age oddness. The problem in establishing notability appears to be that there are lots of unrelated people called Charles Upton. His bestselling books seem to range in the 600,000s in terms of amazon.com sales rank -- which doesn't make him an encyclopedic must-have, but still may establish sufficient notability for authors. If at all possible, merge him into some list or larger New Age topic. dab (𒁳) 17:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  • weak keep - seems his collection of papers is at UConn, according to that first link. Sure, alarm bells should go off when we discover a walled garden around a new-age publishing house, but it doesn't always mean every brick is fake - just most of them. Then again, to me, Amazon rank of 600,000 denotes little to no notability. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 17:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete or merge - just not enough evidence that he's notable in his own right, or thatt the information is accurate enough to keep. Adam Cuerden talk 22:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel 04:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete I see no evidence of independent sources. We have lists of his works (trivial), self-published sources, and sources published by his own publishing house (which lack independence). Without independent sources, notability cannot be established. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Isn't 'new age thinker' a contradiction in terms? Nick mallory 23:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per Jayron32 - no evidence of discussion of author or works in secondary sources, no awards, etc. Hal peridol 23:27, 15 November 2007 (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.