Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keith Garebian

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. Mkdw ^talk 19:38, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Garebian[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a writer, making no particularly strong claim of notability under WP:AUTHOR and citing no reliable source coverage at all. The strongest real claim of notability here is his winning of a local literary award, and that's sourced only to his own website. I searched both Google News and ProQuest, further, and didn't find a lot of strong sourcing that could be used to salvage this: while he garnered 200 hits in "Canadian Newsstand Major Dailies", he was the bylined author of most of them — and he failed to be substantively a subject of any of the remainder, instead being limited to glancing namechecks of his existence in articles about other things. A writer does not automatically get a Wikipedia article just because it's possible to verify that he exists — he has to be the subject of substantive media coverage, but that just hasn't been shown here. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 15:39, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 17:02, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 17:02, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 17:02, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 18:43, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find any reviews of his books, and like nom, couldn't find articles about him as an author. All of his books are published by small Canadian presses (one is a one-person press). This may be a matter of judging him by US standards, but his writing doesn't seem to have garnered the kind of attention we use for notability. LaMona (talk) 04:58, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now ~~Keep~~ likely as sure there wasn't much but I found this, this (which mentions the "prestigious" William Saroyan Award), this and this. Your thoughts, Bearcat and LaMona? Sure it may only be local but as I'm not familiar with this, I assume this may be acceptable. SwisterTwister talk 05:02, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm seeing in those searches (which are some of the same ones I already did WP:BEFORE listing this in the first place) is a lot of primary source confirmation of his existence (e.g. the books search is bringing up titles he wrote) and a few glancing namechecks of the mere fact that he exists, and very little reliable source coverage in which he's the subject — but the latter, not the former, is the type of sourcing it takes to get a person into Wikipedia. Bearcat (talk) 11:43, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He has written a whole series of books about show people, which is what the search is turning up. The Saroyan medal that he won was "created by the Ministry of Diaspora in Armenia, is granted for contributing to the dissemination of Armenian culture in the Diaspora". I'm thinking not high up there in the realm of literary awards. My !vote stands. LaMona (talk) 19:21, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I simply thought I would mention it. Delete for now in that case. SwisterTwister talk 20:44, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not enough in-depth coverage from independent secondary sources to show they meet either WP:GNG or WP:NAUTHOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:37, 31 October 2015 (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.