Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Briody

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 keep. JForget 00:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Briody[edit]

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

Considering the only source is an op-ed piece in a newspaper and the books don't appear to be notable on their own (the first is ranked 873,000th on WP), I believe he fails our notability guidelines. MBisanz ^talk 05:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of reliable sources are available here. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:29, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep. There isn't much to support the article against the specific criteria of WP:Author or the general criteria of WP:BIO, but the books have been quoted and the author interviewed on television, quoted in the news and appears (briefly) in a documentary - all of which must count for something. The article does need a lot of work if it stays, however. Wikipeterproject (talk) 21:40, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:26, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are a significant number of hits on schloar, including a number of citations; he may meet WP:AUTHOR depending on your definition of "widely cited by their peers". Regardless of WP:AUTH, he clearly meets the WP:BIO basic criteria. He's gotten a considerable amount of press regarding Iron Triangle and Halliburton Agenda. Wine Guy Talk 09:26, 6 February 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.