Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Gimenez

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. — Cirt (talk) 01:40, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Gimenez

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

BLP with no independent third party references in more than a year. no notability claim Stuartyeates (talk) 06:46, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep as I've added references from reliable third-party sources, his books are published around the world, and his first novel (at least) made the New York Times best-seller list. - Dravecky (talk) 21:21, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - References establish notability. Article is currently weak, but has a good chance of expanding. TheAustinMan (talk) 17:32, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 16:17, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:24, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:50, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Two of the references used in the article solidly establish this author's notability per our standards. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:48, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Reliable sources added assert notability of topic. Article can be improved. --EdwardZhao (talk) 15:30, 30 June 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.