Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan Vanneman

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:07, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Vanneman[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)

I have added links to reviews, but still do not think this writer is notable - not enough coverage. Tacyarg (talk) 23:29, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:14, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:14, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:14, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:14, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:AUTHOR. Fairly unique name, searches turn up articles by him. I also searched the book titles, finding what looks like a news service notice/ promo for the one of the Sherlock Holmes books that was picked up by 2 minor newspapers, and a mention of the book in an essay, but not much else, certainly not enough to keep. E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:24, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I also found articles by him, but not much about him or his works. As well as the reviews now in the article, I found one in Library Journal, so that is 5 reviews altogether of 2 novels, in Kirkus Reviews, Publishers Weekly, and Library Journal. That might be enough if the reviews were very positive, though if they were, I would expect to find reviews in newspapers, etc, too. But in fact, they're not positive, or only weakly so - "fails to live up to its initial promise", "The plot quickly devolves into a bad episode of The X-Files", "the book goes on too long", "Spotty stuff, but Watson in love just might be worth the price", "The story itself does not keep one's attention ... this work is not recommended", "the awkward prose could use more speed and less help from the thesaurus", and the mention in the essay is along the same lines - "Sadly, some years later, a Chicagoan named Alan Vanneman, who by his own admission has a large television and likes reading about dinosaurs, wrote a book called Sherlock Holmes and the Giant Rat Of Sumatra, thereby proving that withheld treasures, once granted, turn to ashes in a reader's hands." Another review I found online on the Historical Novel Society website says "It [the first few chapters] was great! And then… it digressed. Instead of the continuation of suspense and intrigue, the author brings us into Dr. Watson’s personal life, .... While I’m always up for a good love story and family life, it just doesn’t fit well in Sherlock’s world. [It] finishes off quite well." So none of the reviewers thought he was a notable writer - not even notably bad. I haven't found anything about his other works. RebeccaGreen (talk) 03:34, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subject fails WP:NAUTHOR. On some rare occasions, kamikaze accounts create worthwhile Wikipedia articles. This is not one of them. -The Gnome (talk) 17:14, 1 May 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.