Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert G. Allen (author)

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. (non-admin closure). Cunard (talk) 08:03, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robert G. Allen (author)

No known notability- source it or delete it. It's in the category Confidence tricksters, so can't just be left hanging around. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:41, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's a long edit history on this page. Mr. Allen's notability is pretty clear, and the real issue appears to be whether or not he belongs in the 'confidence trickster' category or not. So I'd keep the page, and retain the existing neutrality tag. --Lockley (talk) 15:11, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've expanded the page, included some criticism, and removed the POV tag. --Lockley (talk) 17:25, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is still absolutely no indication of RS or notability [1]. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 07:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Here (http://www.hawes.com/1983/1983-11-06.pdf) is a New York Times best seller list for 1983 that shows not one but two Robert G. Allen books on the list. I'm not a fan of Allen's, but I do still believe he deserves an entry. --Lockley (talk) 15:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable per WP:BIO. Shot info (talk) 05:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 02:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Lockley's comments, and the fact that Allen has an entry in Gale Contemporary Authors. [2] Zagalejo^^^ 04:40, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This might be another useful source. Zagalejo^^^ 05:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notability established the usual way, so concerns seem to have been addressed. Wily D 14:12, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - By my Google News search he is clearly notable. The articles does need more references. gidonb (talk) 20:45, 5 November 2008 (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.