Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Hunter (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. Davewild (talk) 21:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Hunter (author)[edit]

Was speedied as nn-bio, though notability has been asserted here by publisher. Brought here for greater concensus. ^Khukri 16:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have to say, I fully expected to slap a COI reasoning on this one because of the publisher issue and "second the speedy" assertion. Granted, I most certainly agree there is a real COI issue, however, I think this article is actually about a notable person. Albeit he has only published his first book, it is published by a major publisher. (Bantam Press/Random House). He has received a medal (major awards - albeit outside the field of writing) for his work in his field (defusing bombs in Iraq). Seems to be fairly resource-able by third parties: For example, reviews of him and his book by three outside book reviewers : here, where he appeared on national radio, here, for the Times, and here, for Dailymail.co.uk in a quick 10 minute goog, I'm sure there's more. According to outcomes, Published authors are notable if they have received multiple independent reviews of (emphasis mine)or awards for their work, or if their work is likely to be very widely read. So, surprisingly at least to me, he's notable without ever writing a book (because of his award) and even more so for getting published. The COI issue becomes secondary, IMO. The article certainly needs some major copyediting and other Wiki-expertise to help the well-intentioned publisher (publicist?) An AfD is the perfect time to greatly expand what could be a really good article Cheers, Keeper | 76 21:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Winner of the Queen's Gallantry Medal and a published author with several reviews. Why on earth was this speedied? Nick mallory (talk) 23:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or a radical Rewrite. As written, it's a fluff piece relying upon his actions in the war to count as literary credibility. needs a massive overhaul to focus on the book, if that's what he's notable for. Mostly it's advert to me, and should go. ThuranX (talk) 22:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fluff about how he won the Queen's Gallantry Medal? Nick mallory (talk) 12:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With a Rewrite. Meets WP:N just needs to be reworked and sited. Gtstricky (talk) 23:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We shouldn't delete articles just because they need a rewrite. We have tags for that sort of thing, like "cleanup". Rray (talk) 23:01, 7 December 2007 (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.