Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David T. Hardy

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. ff m 16:40, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David T. Hardy[edit]

Does not meet WP guide to notability. Not a notable person. Reads as a vanity page. Aroundthewayboy (talk) 21:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. - David T. Hardy is a fairly well known author. Current article is a bit smallish, but this is no reason to delete article. Instead, the article should have content added to it. This would also fix the appearance of the subject as not being notable. Yaf (talk) 21:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hm ok, but there is no way of knowing whether he satisfies WP:BIO. Where is the significant coverage in reliable secondary sources? I admit the possibility it might (or might not) exist, but there is currently no evidence of it. Thanks.Aroundthewayboy (talk) 21:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I don't think a mere book review would suffice as significant coverage, based on the criteria laid out in WP:BIO#Creative_professionals. Is he a widely cited important figure? Significant new theory (rather than crackpot theory)? Has his work been the subject of multiple mainstream analyses?

The way I read it, reviews of his book wouldn't suffice for notability. But I don't nominate articles for deletion very often, so I could be misreading this.Aroundthewayboy (talk) 21:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep His books are very widely held, Michael Moore is a big fat stupid white man is in almost 900 worldCat libraries, the earlier Origins and development of the Second Amendment is in several hundred including most law school libraries. . I have not yet looked for reviews, but substantial 3rd party published reviews in RSs are exactly the sort of third party sources intended by the GNG. Mere notices of the books being published are another matter, as are publisher's blurbs and reader reviews on Amazon. DGG (talk) 21:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Okay, IF someone can find some reviews from reliable third parties, I guess I would be satisfied. Doesn't this interpretation of notability mean that any author who has been reviewed anywhere in the world deserves a WP entry? That doesn't seem encyclopedic to me, but apparently it's the consensus on notability. But please establish these 3rd party reviews, at the very least. Thanks! Aroundthewayboy (talk) 03:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that user YAF added a lot more details and citations, making his notability more clear. Thanks for that!Aroundthewayboy (talk) 03:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per DGG. Edward321 (talk) 00:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Widely published law review author and holds a relatively senior position in a notable national organization. Someone with free Lexis or Westlaw access should add the lists to this article, but I guarantee there are more cites out there than are listed right now.Shadowjams (talk) 07:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm changing my vote to keep, after the work of the above posters to establish notability. Thanks. Aroundthewayboy (talk) 18:03, 11 February 2009 (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.