Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Wiprud: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
:<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Authors|list of Authors-related deletion discussions]]. [[User:Coolabahapple|Coolabahapple]] ([[User talk:Coolabahapple|talk]]) 02:48, 23 January 2017 (UTC)</small> |
:<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Authors|list of Authors-related deletion discussions]]. [[User:Coolabahapple|Coolabahapple]] ([[User talk:Coolabahapple|talk]]) 02:48, 23 January 2017 (UTC)</small> |
||
I don't mean to be rude but, Rayman60, do you follow me around and seek todelete what I write? My article Randall Hicks was well researched and he is notable in his field, and you seek to delete that. Now you are doing it again here with this article I created. Brian Wiprud has many books out, they are well reviewed by substantial sources. Wikipedia should constantly grow with new authors and people. Thanks. Gelo962. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Gelo962|Gelo962]] ([[User talk:Gelo962#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Gelo962|contribs]]) 21:07, 23 January 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
I don't mean to be rude but, Rayman60, do you follow me around and seek todelete what I write? My article Randall Hicks was well researched and he is notable in his field, and you seek to delete that. Now you are doing it again here with this article I created. Brian Wiprud has many books out, they are well reviewed by substantial sources. Wikipedia should constantly grow with new authors and people. Thanks. Gelo962. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Gelo962|Gelo962]] ([[User talk:Gelo962#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Gelo962|contribs]]) 21:07, 23 January 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
||
'''Keep''' Well researched article with sufficient sources. [[User:Longevitydude|Longevitydude]] ([[User talk:Longevitydude|talk]]) 01:08, 24 January 2017 (UTC) |
'''Keep''' Well researched article with sufficient sources. [[User:Longevitydude|Longevitydude]] ([[User talk:Longevitydude|talk]]) 01:08, 24 January 2017 (UTC) |
||
Revision as of 00:12, 25 January 2017
- Brian Wiprud (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I do not believe the subject meets WP:Author or WP:GNG. There's almost no coverage of this person other than a few expected links (amazon, goodreads, own website etc) and the awards listed are not notable. Rayman60 (talk) 01:55, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Keep the encyclopedia.com article is sig coverage in an established reliable source here and his books have been reviewed in reliable sources such as Publishers Weekly, also New York Times article which profiles him and is referenced in the encyclopedia.com article, passes WP:BASIC Atlantic306 (talk) 02:42, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:48, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't mean to be rude but, Rayman60, do you follow me around and seek todelete what I write? My article Randall Hicks was well researched and he is notable in his field, and you seek to delete that. Now you are doing it again here with this article I created. Brian Wiprud has many books out, they are well reviewed by substantial sources. Wikipedia should constantly grow with new authors and people. Thanks. Gelo962. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gelo962 (talk • contribs) 21:07, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Keep Well researched article with sufficient sources. Longevitydude (talk) 01:08, 24 January 2017 (UTC)