Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James C. Russell

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. Current consensus that WP:NAUTHOR isn't satisfied, but is the closest to showing notability in the future, with no demonstration of notability on other grounds. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:34, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

James C. Russell[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

De-PROD'd on the basis of his being an author and therefore having reviews of his work published in reliable sources. I don't see any. Non-notable author, theologian, and political candidate who fails WP:GNG and all relevant notability guidelines. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:18, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:18, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:20, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:28, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough coverage of his works to pass notability for authors, not significant enough body of work to meet notability for academics, and clearly non-notable as a politician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:17, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can do a much better job of demonstrating his notability as a writer than this does. While it is true that the article does cite one review of his written work in a reliable source, it takes more than just one source to make someone notable as a writer — otherwise, his writing is referenced almost entirely to its own publication details as circular verification that it exists, rather than any evidence of independent attention from reliable sources. (Oh, and there's also a blog. Which doesn't change anything.) And when it comes to his political campaign, that's referenced almost entirely to primary sources that aren't support for notability at all, except for a tiny smattering of incident coverage that just makes him a WP:BLP1E. It might be possible to write a better article that more effectively demonstrates his preexisting notability as a writer — I don't have access to the correct sourcing databases needed to answer that question one way or the other myself, but I'm willing to consider that it might be possible — but this article isn't doing that in its current form, and the unsuccessful political campaign is contributing no additional notability points over and above the writing itself. Bearcat (talk) 15:48, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - either blow it up or fix it up as a perennial candidate. Bearian (talk)

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.