Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chas Newkey-Burden

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 nancy ^(talk) 19:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chas Newkey-Burden[edit]

(was an incomplete afd) Non-notable and non asserted? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I've found some coverage of his books. Haven't had time to look further yet but I think this helps to establish notability. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 01:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 09:50, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because it fails WP:BIO we need non-trivial coverage of the person to support this biographical Wikipedia article. Not just book reviews. JBsupreme (talk) 17:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's sometimes easier to prove notability for someone who has done one thing for a long time than it is for someone with a varied career. I wouldn't be surprised if again we don't reach a consensus on this one. - House of Scandal (talk) 20:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Go to Google Books, go to Google News & Archive, go to Google, try different keywords, and when sources are not online go to your local fucking library and read them. Make it work, because authors don't need people kicking them around after all the hard hours they have spent getting their words just right. Sincerely, Manhattan Samurai (talk) 20:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments are neither civil nor productive. Written references are acceptable. Why don't you go to the library rather than swearing at your fellow editors? - House of Scandal (talk) 23:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do, and I have, which is how I and another saved the Alan Cabal article, but it is pandemic around here that editors nominate for deletion without thinking, vote without researching, and ignore wholly these things called libraries which previous generations seem to have "built." Manhattan Samurai (talk) 23:18, 20 July 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.