Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Allen Butler
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 keep. Clearly meets WP:AUTH, and policy-based consensus to delete. I further note that this BLP seems to be a bit contentious, so I have taken the liberty of semi protecting the page; that action is independant of the close here. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 05:06, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Daniel Allen Butler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL))
By all means delete it! Danielallenbutler (talk) 01:16, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- [The comment that appeared here has been deleted. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:08, 13 October 2011 (UTC)][reply]
Absolutely, 100% correct! Couldn't have put it better myself! Danielallenbutler (talk) 02:43, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy procedural keep. I don't believe the author is notable, but this AfD was opened wholly outside procedure and has no nomination rationaile beyond the fact the apparent subject of it and editor has decided he doesn't like it. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:27, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:51, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Is that a rationale in WP:SK? causa sui (talk) 16:57, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think there's a strong case that this falls under SK criterion 2. Lagrange613 17:08, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The delete !vote by Stuartyeates seems to rule out #2. The thing about speedy keeps is that it only works if nobody thinks the discussion is worthwhile. causa sui (talk) 17:48, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think there's a strong case that this falls under SK criterion 2. Lagrange613 17:08, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Is that a rationale in WP:SK? causa sui (talk) 16:57, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:43, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The infighting among Titanic buffs is beside the point. His book "Unsinkable:The Full Story" was a New York Times bestseller. This Washington Post item is behind a paywall but seems to describe "Unsinkable" as "the best narrative" of the Titanic story. Another book, "The Other Side of the Night", is the subject of a news report here. All of this is quite enough to satisfy WP:AUTHOR. (Did anyone even look?) --MelanieN (talk) 04:09, 11 October 2011 (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.