Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopher Edwards (2nd nomination)

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. JForget 02:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Edwards[edit]

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

He does not seem to be notable. He wrote one book in the 1970s and got some press mention then, but very little in depth coverage (as required for WP:Notable) then or since. Kitfoxxe (talk) 02:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first nomination seems to be about another person.Kitfoxxe (talk) 02:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added some references. The Milwaukee Sentinel article, in particular, is as much about him as the book. He said (this was 1979) that he was afraid for his life, and that he travelled with a bodyguard. It would be interesting to know what he has done since. The Library of Congress lists Test your Bible IQ (ISBN 0760710627), a 1999 book by Christopher O. Edwards, born 1954 (the same year of birth as this writer), but I can't tell whether the 1999 book is by the same writer. I think that the coverage of the book equates to coverage of him, since the book is about his experiences. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Still everything cited in the article is about the one book, the book itself and 3 reviews. He seems to be a person "known only for one thing." Kitfoxxe (talk) 16:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I see some nice referencing work done by Eastmain (talk · contribs), good job. :) Cirt (talk) 14:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I find some reviews and citations of Edwards book: [1]; [2]; [3]; [4]; [5]; etc. LotLE×talk 08:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's true that he is known for one thing. However the amount of coverage of that seems to be enough to pass WP's usual standards of notability. Borock (talk) 14:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per my own review citations above, which seem adequate having considered other !votes here now. LotLE×talk 18:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Enough to pass WP's usual standards of notability. - Ret.Prof (talk) 02:36, 11 February 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.