Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/E. R. Hooton

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 delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:40, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

E. R. Hooton[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Non-notable author. I was able to find one brief review of one of his books [1], but far from meeting WP:NAUTHOR. b uidhe 21:49, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:28, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:28, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:33, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, heres another in The Journal of Slavic Military Studies. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:39, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, but given that the review declared his work "unexceptional" and decried his "cut-and-paste approach", I don't see how this is the strongest support for notability. b uidhe 23:01, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Regardless of the two reviews linked above, the subject simply doesn't meet the WP:NAUTHOR guidelines. Pretty much any author is going to have reviews of their works; that doesn't make them notable. Jmertel23 (talk) 23:51, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

However, if their body of work is "significant or well-known", and there are a number of reviews it does - see no. 3 of WP:AUTHOR (not that i'm saying this is the case here). Coolabahapple (talk) 11:04, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely agree that substantial coverage of a work via reviews could make the work/author well-known, but the small number of (not very easy to find) reviews in this case don't seem to me to meet that criterion. Jmertel23 (talk) 11:48, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the reviews linked above plus this one and this one. It doesn't matter whether reviews are positive, negative or neutral: it's their existence that matters. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:06, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mr Hooton has written some well-regarded books (the works on the Luftwaffe are considered among the best available on the topic), but isn't a high profile historian by any means. None of the reviews of his books above provides the coverage of him as a person required to meet WP:BIO. Nick-D (talk) 10:08, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just fyi, artist and author articles can pass WP:CREATIVE wile utterly devoid of bio details. If the books or the paintings get WP:SIGCOV or have an impact on a scholarly field, we can keep the page about the author.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:20, 6 February 2019 (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.