Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/R. Joe Brandon
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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Prod tag was contested based on the the subjects authorship of this book, which ranked #891,170 in sales (albeit, it is a specialized subject) Most of the relevant ~500 Google hits appear to be related to his websites. OhNoitsJamie Talk 00:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete None of his achievements seem very notable. Also note that the creator's only Wikipedia contributions have been to this article and inserting this guy into other articles. -Elmer Clark 03:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination. There's nothing in the article, and again nothing there in the gsearch. No news articles, just blogs, book lists which have picked up the [one] book of his, a co-edited effort. Alexa Rank for shovelbums.org: 5,694,146th Ohconfucius 09:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Subject fails WP:BIO, lacking multiple third-party non-trivial articles about him, no national awards, or evidence of major contribution to field. While we're at it, the book fails WP:BK for lacking major reviews, no evidence it has been adopted as a text, not adapted as a motion picture, no awards, not a best-seller. Gets only 177 distinct Ghits out of 525 or so general hits, mainly from resume websites and other promotions. Tychocat 09:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - he's coauthored a number of papers ( according to googlescholar ) but does not meet the Professor criteria of WP:BIO and clearly fails the author section. - Peripitus (Talk) 11:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable enough. (WP:BIO)Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 02:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep. The book, relased by CRC Press, is a subsidiary of Taylor and Francis, a highly well-known book publisher. Keep authors who publish with non-vanity publishers, especially ones from major publishers like Taylor and Francis. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- As I read it just having a publishedbook does not meet the author part of WP:BIO. If it did then we'd keep an article for every author who'd managed to convince someone to publish. I can't find multiple reviews for the work, information that he's seen as a leader in his field or anything else that satisfies a criteria for keeping - Peripitus (Talk) 00:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it isn't. In cases such as non-vanity published authors, I go by the part of WP:BIO that says This is not intended to be an exclusionary list; just because someone doesn't fall into one of these categories doesn't mean an article on the person should automatically be deleted. I see no reason to delete published authors, provided they've been published by a non-vanity press. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I've lived next to and met a few authors and learned that, in general, getting one book published in not too hard. If you get a second out then you're usually notable as the first one at least broke even. My primary school vice principle and a low level govt clerk I know have published books ...... If you had an article about THEM that's about all you could say as nothing else has reliable sources. I think you may have drawn the notability line for authors a bit too far on the generous side - Peripitus (Talk) 08:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Meanwhile, I know a number of writers who can't even get a publisher to give their work the time of day. Anecdotes aren't all that useful here. There are some people who would include any book with an ISBN, which would include any of those authors, too. I think published by non-vanity is an excellent compromise, and I can justify it with that clause in WP:BIO. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I've lived next to and met a few authors and learned that, in general, getting one book published in not too hard. If you get a second out then you're usually notable as the first one at least broke even. My primary school vice principle and a low level govt clerk I know have published books ...... If you had an article about THEM that's about all you could say as nothing else has reliable sources. I think you may have drawn the notability line for authors a bit too far on the generous side - Peripitus (Talk) 08:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it isn't. In cases such as non-vanity published authors, I go by the part of WP:BIO that says This is not intended to be an exclusionary list; just because someone doesn't fall into one of these categories doesn't mean an article on the person should automatically be deleted. I see no reason to delete published authors, provided they've been published by a non-vanity press. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - a close call but not quite enough notability to meet WP:BIO but he still has time. BlueValour 02:04, 5 September 2006 (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.