Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Kuzneski

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. The article needs to be cleaned up though. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:53, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Kuzneski[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

advert fluff piece by publicist meant to showcase an author that narrowly skirts WP:N. #33 "honorable mention" on the NYT bestseller list does not cut it. Article is used solely to puff up client, and from there is routinely linkdumped onto much more notable articles Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 13:02, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The fact that The Lost Throne was in the top 5 on the UK charts, and The Prophecy was number four on the same chart proves notability. The mention on the NYT bestseller list and London Times bestseller list doesn't hurt either. — GorillaWarfare ^{talk-review me!} 14:32, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent reliable sources covering in depth. And I'm sick of the way he's being spammed all over the project. Delete his books, too. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, plus a firm reminder to Steven J. Anderson to assume good faith and to be civil. Prose like "being spammed all over the project" is over the top and suggests a prejudice inconsistent with the pursuit of reasonable consensus. For the record, I don't know Mr Kuzneski, nor have I read any of his works, but it seems apparent at a glance that his name is popping up in a number of unrelated and notable sources. —Bill Price (nyb) 20:10, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- An additional note to the nominator: Recall that perfection is not required on Wikipedia, and that "I don't like the way it's written" is not a valid reason for deleting an article. If a person or topic is notable enough to warrant an article, then that article, if poorly-written, ought not to be deleted—it ought to be improved through collaboration. I've personally rehabilitated similar "fluff pieces" in the past, and frankly, it's not that big of a deal. It's just part of the job here. —Bill Price (nyb) 20:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Here's a firm reminder to Bill. Check your facts before you issue firm reminders. A quick look at Wikipedia:Ani#User:PenguinUSA_and_spamming_Chris_Kuzneski will confirm that the subject's name is being spammed all over the project and the guilty party indef blocked for doing it. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 20:25, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm already aware of that. What I take issue with is your belief that punishment (in the form of wiping all mentions of the author off the face of the project) is the appropriate response. I say to assume good faith because I'm not convinced that the author is non-notable and I am open to the possibility that the author or his works do warrant mention in certain articles. This scorched earth approach you're following is unreasonable and uncalled for, especially when run in parallel to an ongoing discussion. —Bill Price (nyb) 20:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Let me put it this way: I'm a third-party editor who has had no part in any of this up until a few minutes ago. What I'm perceiving here is an emotional overreaction to the overzealous promotion committed by the PenguinUSA (talk · contribs) account. But remember, the misdeeds of an editor do not have any bearing on the overarching goals of the project. The punishment ethos is wholly out of line with the five pillars of Wikipedia. —Bill Price (nyb) 20:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is little doubt the article's subject is a notable author, as he is nationally published and has sold significant volume, both in the US and UK. Notability is here irregardless of whether there is a WP:COI of the original editor. Sure, the article needs better references, but that can presumably be fixed. The spamming of other articles with the author/works is a separate issue that shouldn't determine notability here. CrazyPaco (talk) 20:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep we have much lesss notable authors and books with WP articles. this shows that publishers are using chris as a recommender for other, newer authors. I know this can be logrolling, but it does point to notability (not necessarily as well earned as hemingway or proust, but notability anyway).The article is, of course, overly promotional, along with the individual book articles. so trim them. I may actually do this.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:29, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - two books on the UK charts would seem to make him notable. Definitely a "puffy" article though. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 20:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Clearly a notable author with multiple books by major publishers. This article looking "puffy" is an editing issue, not a notability one. --Oakshade (talk) 03:46, 14 August 2010 (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.