- 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 no consensus. Sandstein 20:02, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Eric Dregni ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:BLP of a writer, whose only apparent claim of notability per
WP:AUTHOR is that he and his work exist. Of the 12 footnotes here, six of them are to his books' own promotional profiles on the website of their own publisher, while another is his own faculty profile on the website of his own employer -- so none of these are independent sources for the purpose of establishing notability. And while the other five are media, there's one (City Pages) that just briefly namechecks his existence in the context of having been a member of a non-notable local bar band in the 1990s, and two dead links (Bristol Evening Post and Bloomberg) that are unretrievable even via the Wayback Machine to determine how much they ever actually did or didn't say about him, so none of those are helping to establish notability either.
I was able to recover the other two dead links (The Globe and Mail and the Toronto Star) via
ProQuest, but The Globe and Mail also just gives him a glancing namecheck of his existence in an article about something other than him. So literally the only reference here that's actually doing anything at all in terms of establishing his notability is the Toronto Star — but if he can't claim something on the order of winning a noteworthy literary award, then it takes quite a bit more than just one notability-assisting source to get him over
WP:GNG on "notable because media coverage exists" grounds.
Bearcat (
talk)
19:51, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
- Bearcat, you old curmudgeon, you. I love you to death, man, for the energy you put into bringing inadequately-sourced bios to AfD. But ]
WP:AUTHOR does not require winning "a noteworthy literary award" (although he did win a
Fulbright Fellowship. We set standards for notability, and follow them. In this case
WP:AUTHOR: "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews."
E.M.Gregory (
talk)
16:27, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
- I did not say that author required winning a noteworthy literary award per se. But what is true is that if an author has won a notable literary award, then one reliable source which properly verifies the award win is enough in and of itself to get the article kept and merely flagged for reference improvement, with deletion permanently off the table forever because passage of a hard notability criterion has been properly verified — whereas if the notability claim is merely that the author and his work exist, then it takes more than just one source to close the gap between existence and notability. That's what I said.
Bearcat (
talk)
16:31, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, it is. But this writer has had reviews, profiles and INDEPTH coverage in media over many years, a good deal of which is now on the page (more can be added.) Your assertion that "only apparent claim of notability per WP:AUTHOR is that he and his work exist" is simply not valid. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 17:51, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
- I did not say that author required winning a noteworthy literary award per se. But what is true is that if an author has won a notable literary award, then one reliable source which properly verifies the award win is enough in and of itself to get the article kept and merely flagged for reference improvement, with deletion permanently off the table forever because passage of a hard notability criterion has been properly verified — whereas if the notability claim is merely that the author and his work exist, then it takes more than just one source to close the gap between existence and notability. That's what I said.
Bearcat (
talk)
16:31, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- Bearcat, you old curmudgeon, you. I love you to death, man, for the energy you put into bringing inadequately-sourced bios to AfD. But ]
WP:AUTHOR does not require winning "a noteworthy literary award" (although he did win a
Fulbright Fellowship. We set standards for notability, and follow them. In this case
WP:AUTHOR: "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews."
E.M.Gregory (
talk)
16:27, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 19:56, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 19:56, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions.
Bakazaka (
talk)
19:56, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
I agree. When I was just recently editing this page I tried to find something more than just what was here and all I could do was correct the bio's occupation information. I don't think that this meets notability requirements, and, if someone does want to recreate this article with additional sources that establish this notability, they can do so later through the process of drafting an article. He seems to primarily write popular non-fiction coffee-table style books. Sincerely, Shashi Sushila Murray, ( message me) 01:28, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
- Delete a non-notable writer. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 00:39, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
- Keep very modest WP:HEYMANN upgrade, I added a coupe of articles about him to the page, expanded it a little, added a couple of book reviews to those already on the page and tagged the page for better citations. Note that his Norway book was funded by a Fulbright. What I did not do was add all of the book reviews that exist; some were already on the page. When an WP:AUTHOR gets this many book reviews,we KEEP the article per "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." E.M.Gregory ( talk) 15:34, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
- Keep. Enough book reviews (per EMG) to pass WP:AUTHOR. I think it's noteworthy that many of them are in wide-circulation newspapers rather than academic journals; those are harder to get and indicate a greater level of notability. But this level of reviewing even in academic journals would be enough. — David Eppstein ( talk) 19:18, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 06:21, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
- I've changed my mind to keep now that I see the Fulbright funded work and additional work as per WP:HEYMANN upgrade along the lines of WP:AUTHOR explained above. Sincerely, Shashi Sushila Murray, ( message me) 17:28, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:33, 23 November 2018 (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.
- 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 no consensus. Sandstein 20:02, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Eric Dregni ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:BLP of a writer, whose only apparent claim of notability per
WP:AUTHOR is that he and his work exist. Of the 12 footnotes here, six of them are to his books' own promotional profiles on the website of their own publisher, while another is his own faculty profile on the website of his own employer -- so none of these are independent sources for the purpose of establishing notability. And while the other five are media, there's one (City Pages) that just briefly namechecks his existence in the context of having been a member of a non-notable local bar band in the 1990s, and two dead links (Bristol Evening Post and Bloomberg) that are unretrievable even via the Wayback Machine to determine how much they ever actually did or didn't say about him, so none of those are helping to establish notability either.
I was able to recover the other two dead links (The Globe and Mail and the Toronto Star) via
ProQuest, but The Globe and Mail also just gives him a glancing namecheck of his existence in an article about something other than him. So literally the only reference here that's actually doing anything at all in terms of establishing his notability is the Toronto Star — but if he can't claim something on the order of winning a noteworthy literary award, then it takes quite a bit more than just one notability-assisting source to get him over
WP:GNG on "notable because media coverage exists" grounds.
Bearcat (
talk)
19:51, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
- Bearcat, you old curmudgeon, you. I love you to death, man, for the energy you put into bringing inadequately-sourced bios to AfD. But ]
WP:AUTHOR does not require winning "a noteworthy literary award" (although he did win a
Fulbright Fellowship. We set standards for notability, and follow them. In this case
WP:AUTHOR: "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews."
E.M.Gregory (
talk)
16:27, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
- I did not say that author required winning a noteworthy literary award per se. But what is true is that if an author has won a notable literary award, then one reliable source which properly verifies the award win is enough in and of itself to get the article kept and merely flagged for reference improvement, with deletion permanently off the table forever because passage of a hard notability criterion has been properly verified — whereas if the notability claim is merely that the author and his work exist, then it takes more than just one source to close the gap between existence and notability. That's what I said.
Bearcat (
talk)
16:31, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, it is. But this writer has had reviews, profiles and INDEPTH coverage in media over many years, a good deal of which is now on the page (more can be added.) Your assertion that "only apparent claim of notability per WP:AUTHOR is that he and his work exist" is simply not valid. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 17:51, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
- I did not say that author required winning a noteworthy literary award per se. But what is true is that if an author has won a notable literary award, then one reliable source which properly verifies the award win is enough in and of itself to get the article kept and merely flagged for reference improvement, with deletion permanently off the table forever because passage of a hard notability criterion has been properly verified — whereas if the notability claim is merely that the author and his work exist, then it takes more than just one source to close the gap between existence and notability. That's what I said.
Bearcat (
talk)
16:31, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- Bearcat, you old curmudgeon, you. I love you to death, man, for the energy you put into bringing inadequately-sourced bios to AfD. But ]
WP:AUTHOR does not require winning "a noteworthy literary award" (although he did win a
Fulbright Fellowship. We set standards for notability, and follow them. In this case
WP:AUTHOR: "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews."
E.M.Gregory (
talk)
16:27, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 19:56, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 19:56, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions.
Bakazaka (
talk)
19:56, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
I agree. When I was just recently editing this page I tried to find something more than just what was here and all I could do was correct the bio's occupation information. I don't think that this meets notability requirements, and, if someone does want to recreate this article with additional sources that establish this notability, they can do so later through the process of drafting an article. He seems to primarily write popular non-fiction coffee-table style books. Sincerely, Shashi Sushila Murray, ( message me) 01:28, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
- Delete a non-notable writer. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 00:39, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
- Keep very modest WP:HEYMANN upgrade, I added a coupe of articles about him to the page, expanded it a little, added a couple of book reviews to those already on the page and tagged the page for better citations. Note that his Norway book was funded by a Fulbright. What I did not do was add all of the book reviews that exist; some were already on the page. When an WP:AUTHOR gets this many book reviews,we KEEP the article per "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." E.M.Gregory ( talk) 15:34, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
- Keep. Enough book reviews (per EMG) to pass WP:AUTHOR. I think it's noteworthy that many of them are in wide-circulation newspapers rather than academic journals; those are harder to get and indicate a greater level of notability. But this level of reviewing even in academic journals would be enough. — David Eppstein ( talk) 19:18, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 06:21, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
- I've changed my mind to keep now that I see the Fulbright funded work and additional work as per WP:HEYMANN upgrade along the lines of WP:AUTHOR explained above. Sincerely, Shashi Sushila Murray, ( message me) 17:28, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:33, 23 November 2018 (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.