Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gun Buster

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. Michig (talk) 07:26, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gun Buster[edit]

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

Unreferenced biography article created over 7 years ago, tagged with an unreferenced tag over 6 years ago. Should instead redirect to Gunbuster, a more notable term. Sources welcomed, if anyone finds them. Mika1h (talk) 09:50, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the proponent wishes to delete this entry because it has a similar name as some cartoon character. There was a hatnote on this article indicating where to go for the cartoon character but because some people might get confused it is suggested that this entry is deleted. It is clear from google searches that this author wrote several propaganda books during WWII and thus during a time of austerity this makes the author somewhat notable. The fact that there are negligible electronic records indicating this author's status does not mean that it is not worth having an entry and hoping for additional editorial input in future. This issue continually arises for books written before the advent of Google and it is a shame that there seems to be a move for wholesale removal of data which only has scanty reference on Google. I'd go and search the NLA for more info if I had time but I have a paying job to go to. Gillyweed (talk) 06:23, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BIO, "a person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources". Just because you presume the person is notable doesn't mean it's worth keeping. If you can't find sources through Google, maybe visit your local library. You shouldn't have created the article at the first place if you didn't have any sources. --Mika1h (talk) 00:35, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind advice. I created the article seven years ago and several other authors have helpfully added to it. I'm sorry but I don't have time to pop down to the local library and trawl through the archives to save a stub. However, the material that currently exists is helpful and is not contradicted by any of the fairly poor sources currently accessible by google. Just because something cannot be googled does not mean it isn't notable. The world did exist before google. Gillyweed (talk) 03:18, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I was only able to find the one source online, but a google books search brings back a ton of hits so I believe article improvement should be possible via those. I am unconvinced by the argument that this article is causing significant problems for manga readers. Artw (talk) 15:19, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michig (talk) 07:41, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The books look barely notable on their own. I'd be interested to hear from User:Michig and User:Gillyweed what WP:AUTHOR criteria they feel are met here. NickCT (talk) 13:49, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am relying on criteria 4(d) - represented in major institutions. In this case the National Library of Australia contains multiple copies (which is unusual for a non-Australian author) and criteria 3 - independent reviews. I am now looking for them and finding some. Gillyweed (talk) 07:18, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think "galleries or museums" from 4d is meant to include "libraries"? That seems like a stretch. NickCT (talk) 15:11, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, why not? The National Library of Australia doesn't collect everything (unless it is Australian), and thus the fact that a Pommy book remains in the collection (and hasn't been de-accessioned) indicates that it thinks that the book should be represented in its collection. Gillyweed (talk) 21:33, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Books from the 1940s aren't always going to be easily sourced online, but we have the substantial source added by Artw as well as multiple mentions in other books about WW2 literature, as can be seen, for example, in the results of a GBooks search for <"Gun Buster" Dunkirk>. (Some examples, mostly viewable only in snippets: [1][2][3][4][5][6] --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:11, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Arxiloxos: - Which seems to be an argument for why the books might be notable, not an argument for why the author might be notable. The article, as it currently stands, appears to be a biography about the author. Not an article about a series of books. NickCT (talk) 17:17, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - To me, this is a difference without substantial consequence. Either way, the appropriate result is an article that includes information about the author and his books. Editors might disagree about the article's title, but one way or another, Gun Buster would be kept either as the main title or a redirect to whatever other title is chosen.--Arxiloxos (talk) 18:26, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've added more material and more references. If I have time I will do some more work on it tomorrow. Gillyweed (talk) 08:12, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Arxiloxos: - re " difference without substantial consequence" - With respect, I think you've gone way wide of the mark here. If you can't see the substantial difference between a WP article about a book series and a WP article about a person, you might want to take time to consider how WP works and look at other comparable articles.

Under your logic we could just wrap Mark Twain into The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. That's clearly not right. NickCT (talk) 15:15, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:43, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems feasible to tease biographical details from the many references which are out there such as this. The topic seems more notable than the rival animé which seems to be a routine potboiler. Andrew D. (talk) 14:00, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since the article was listed it has been improved dramatically with many more references and I believe now clearly meet the requirements for notability. Gillyweed (talk) 06:32, 23 December 2014 (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.