Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ed Williams (novelist)

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 delete. Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Williams (novelist)[edit]

A bio article about this person (Ed Williams) had just been deleted. It used to be at Ed Williams (where now lies an article about an homonymous actor) Damiens.rf 14:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just restored the text that someone had mysteriously turned into a redirect to a completely different person [1]. Also, please template the article when AfD'ing DuncanHill (talk) 14:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Doesn't seem to quite meet WP:BIO at the moment - sources are kind of weak. Sure I'd be happy to overturn to a keep if significant, third party coverage in reliable sources that are not just reprints of promotional material were provided, but I don't think it's likely that those can be demonstrated to exist.--Les boys (talk) 16:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are now both Library of Congress listings for my books, which certainly proves it exists. There are also links to feature articles on Southern Scribe.com and a keynote speaking gig I did for the awards banquet for the Georgia Library Association a few years back. Also included a speaker's bureau listing, and my appearance with Deborah Ford and Dedra Grizzard at a literary festival. There's more stuff I could add, but the main thing I wanted to do here is substantiate some things. If y'all still remove the listing, it's fine, but at least I'll feel like you did it from the facts, and not because you felt that none of the listing could be substantiated.

Thank you,

68.107.198.71 (talk) 14:41, 6 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, Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Y'all" is spoken English in the South, but looks wierd as written English. Just saying. Edison (talk) 05:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. I'm not convinced that this should be deleted. It does need a cleanup to remove unencyclopedic information. Given the various moves and redirect and stuff it might be wise to let this be for a few months and see if the article can be improved to clearly meet WP:BLP. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Local author, with one non-notable book found in a few regional libraries and a less notable sequel found in even fewer. Apparently a third one is one the way--if it becomes notable, then an article might become justified. The "references" are in the nature of press releases. As even the subject recognizes, the LC listings show the books exist, not that they are important./ and giving two talks does not amount to distinction either. DGG (talk) 06:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per DGG. No evidence of significant coverage of his books, such as reviews in literary magazines, newspapers, etc. Fails WP:CREATIVE. Nsk92 (talk) 03:41, 17 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.