Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry N. MacLean

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. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Harry N. MacLean[edit]

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

~~Unsourced bio of non-notable author.~~ Created by an account User:Mawale that claims to be the article's subject, so apparent violation of WP:AUTO and WP:COI. Contested prod. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:35, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from nominator: Sources have now been added to the article which demonstrate notability. However, the WP:AUTO/WP:COI issues remain. WP:AUTO says "Writing an autobiography on Wikipedia is strongly discouraged, unless your writing has been approved by other editors in the community". Outside of this AfD, I see no evidence that this approval has been either sought or given. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am assuming that you believe this editor to have a conflict of interest because a biography of Harry N. MacLean initially appeared at User:Mawale, and because of the focus of the user's contributions. I wouldn't call these a smoking gun (I've often seen editors create draft articles on their user pages), but I have added a note to User talk:Mawale explaining our conflict of interest policy (with which I wouldn't expect a new user like this one to be necessarily familiar). COI and AUTO, of course, don't set out grounds for deletion in their own right. Gonzonoir (talk) 10:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Obviously I may have overlooked a more overt claim by Mawale to be MacLean; please correct me if so. Gonzonoir (talk) 10:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Yes, I read the originator's user page before it was blanked as a statement that they are Harry N. MacLean, not as a draft article. But I seem to be in a minority on that. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, speedy close, courtesy blank. Subject won an Edgar Award for a book-length work [1] and is obviously notable per WP:ANYBIO and WP:AUTHOR. And if one book wasn't enough, a second book was listed as "notable" by the NYTimes [2]. The search links above produce more than enough results to demonstrate unquestionable notability. This should be closed and courtesy blanked ASAP. That the article was created by its subject shouldn't be ignored, but the subject is clearly notable and the text is not spammy in nature. There was absolutely no reason not to treat the editor as a good faith contributor and provide guidance to him. The sockpuppet claims are pretty much empty, since he appears to have abandoned the original account before doing significant editing under the second one, and abandoning "real name" accounts is hardly unusual here. I'm tempted to close and blank this myself. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep – The author’s books are the definitive nonfiction source material for sensational crime cases Ken McElroy and James Ford Seale. His book In Broad Daylight was made into a television movie. This nomination occurred after I asked the Help Desk to enforce the rule that speedy deletion prods can’t be reinstated after they have been contested. My intention was to rescue the article but the nomination occurred shortly after I made the request about the prod. I totally agree that it would have been much better if the author was not writing about himself (if in fact that’s the case – we don’t know 100% for sure – I have sent an email. Writing about yourself is strongly discouraged for good reason but it is not grounds for deletion if the subject is in fact notable. And yes the articles in question need a lot of work but these debates are about whether the subject is notable and not about whether the article is any good. Americasroof (talk) 02:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete [lengthy personal attack redacted per WP:BLP] over WP:AUTO and WP:COI issues (paraphrase) -Tracer9999 (talk) 07:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong, speedy keep: Autobios are not per se deletable and this article, even if edited by the subject, does not seem overly non-neutral to me. Needs clean up, but that's not a reason to delete. – ukexpat (talk) 15:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Agree w Hullaballoo Power.corrupts (talk) 16:08, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: not to pile on, but these references in academic books to MacLean's work ([3], [4], [5], [6]) and these reviews of his work in prominent national newspapers (New York Times, L.A. Times, Chicago Sun-Times (with an author interview), Denver Post (on the movie adaptation), and NYT again, verifying the Edgar Award) demonstrate for me that the author amply meets the general notability requirement for substantial reliable source coverage and the specific WP:AUTHOR requirements for "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". Gonzonoir (talk) 21:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject clearly meets notability guidelines for authors. Edward321 (talk) 05:34, 25 November 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.