Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jon F. Merz

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. MBisanz ^talk 23:48, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jon F. Merz[edit]

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

Non-notable writer who fails WP:AUTHOR and who has never published a book that passes any of the criteria at WP:BK. Qworty (talk) 05:34, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've fleshed out some of the article and found some sources, but it's mostly local coverage and trade reviews. I'm kind of undecided so far, but am leaning towards delete. I just want to note that there is a second Jon F. Mertz that is a University of Pennsylvania professor and that they are not the same person. That will probably interfere with looking for sources.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:22, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Two reasons in combo.

1. Per WP:AUTHOR #3: "The person has created.. a.. well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of.. multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." I count five dedicated book reviews, plus multiple coverage of his NaNo win, and coverage of the possible TV series. Granted three of the five reviews are trade, but they are trade books, to be expected for teens and 20s vampire genre, and trade reviews are OK, so long as they are dedicated articles about the book and not a PR.

1a. The TV series. It is WP:TOOSOON to call, but the source[1] shows they have raised the money to begin filming which is the biggest hurdle. It does seem likely they will have a pilot sooner than later, although unknown how notable it will be. This is clearly not enough on its own, but in combo with 1 above is enough for me. Many of the sources are recent and most likely another year or two even more sources will show so no rush to delete. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 02:36, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:41, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 15:16, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 19:01, 30 November 2012 (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.