Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/M. Christian: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 02:51, 27 April 2010

M. Christian

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

After five years we seem to have established only that he has written a book. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 20:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:BEFORE and WP:BK. This author has written a number of books that are available on Amazon.com and Barnes & Noble. The article has citations and other ghits can provide more reliable sourced addition or length to the article. The nominator placed a PROD on the article and an admin removed it after reviewing the PROD. DGG explained his actions in this DIFF. Please see articleRevHist to see that the admin was not its creator. This is a classic case of a nominator being too eager to delete an article before following WP:BEFORE's admonition to improve first. --Morenooso (talk) 20:35, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominator. What has WP:BK got to do with this? The article is about a person and the criteria at WP:AUTHOR are rather more stringent: it seems fairly clear that he does not meet them. There is no evidence of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, for example. WP:BLP also applies here of course. Wikilawyering about alleged failure to follow WP:BEFORE has nothing to do with the case. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 20:46, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

N.B.--the convention if for the nom to express his views in the nomination, and not make a separate "del" entry, as that appears as a second vote.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 21:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
very weak Keep That I decline a BLP prod because there is some sourcing does not mean that I necessarily think the article should be in Wikipedia. In this case, a very weak keep only, because Amazon reviews are not enough to establish notability, unless they've been reprinted from a reliable source. But he works in a subgenre where sourcing is particualrly difficult, & I leave it for those who know SF to decide if these prticular reviews can be considered sufficient. KT did quite right to bring it here, where the community can decide. He did make one error, which I can hardly blame him for, as I also didn't catch it. If it's been here since 2006, it's not eligible for BLP prod, which is only for new articles. DGG ( talk ) 21:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Morenooso.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

N.B.--the convention is for afd participants not to vote, because afd is not a vote. Rather, the convention is for afd participants to discover and evaluate sources usable in improving the article in question. I hope i have helped clarify this convention for you. 160.39.213.222 (talk) 02:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 11: / Line 11: @@
 *'''very weak Keep'''    That I decline a BLP prod because there is some sourcing does not mean that I necessarily think the article should be in Wikipedia. In this case, a very weak keep only, because Amazon reviews are not enough to establish notability, unless they've been reprinted from a reliable source. But he works in a subgenre where sourcing is particualrly difficult, & I leave it for those who know SF to decide if these prticular reviews can be considered sufficient.  KT did quite right to  bring it here, where the community can decide. He did make one error, which I can hardly blame him for, as I also didn't catch it. If it's been here since 2006, it's not eligible for BLP prod, which is only for new articles. '''[[User:DGG| DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG| talk ]]) 21:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 *'''Keep.'''  Per Morenooso.--[[User:Epeefleche|Epeefleche]] ([[User talk:Epeefleche|talk]]) 22:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
+:N.B.--the convention is for afd participants not to vote, because afd is not a vote. Rather, the convention is for afd participants to discover and evaluate sources usable in improving the article in question. I hope i have helped clarify this convention for you. [[Special:Contributions/160.39.213.222|160.39.213.222]] ([[User talk:160.39.213.222|talk]]) 02:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)