Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ken Silverstein

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. SNOW applies here. Tone 18:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Silverstein[edit]

Has acquired 5 lines of text in 3 years and is going nowhere Mervyn Emrys (talk) 19:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. This is the Washington editor for Harper's magazine and a Los Angeles Times reporter, author of the book The Radioactive Boy Scout: The True Story of a Boy and His Backyard Nuclear Reactor published by Random House, winner of the Overseas Press Club Award for a series he co-wrote, discussed in numerous reliable sources. KleenupKrew (talk) 05:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the fact that the article is a stub is not grounds for deletion. LinguistAtLarge • Msg 17:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well known journalist. There was a minor dustup a while back when he pretended to be a lobbyist for a Harper's story. See this article on him at the top of the 1200 gnews results, should be a lot more. A trip to gbooks shows his books get reviews, of course., so he satisfies WP:AUTHOR too. John Z (talk) 20:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless some of this enthusiasm turns into actual edits on the article. Three years is long enough to think about it. And actually, he's just a free-lance writer for Harper's. Everybody who writes for Harper's is listed as a "contributing editor." Sham? Mervyn Emrys (talk) 20:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question - As long as the subject is notable and Wikipedia has no deadline, I don't see a problem if it remains a stub for 1, 5 or 10 years. Can you point out any other policy or guideline I might be missing? LinguistAtLarge • Msg 22:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is no requirement that an article be worked on to keep in in Wikipedia. Notable both as a author and a journalist. DGG (talk) 22:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 00:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nominator has not presented any reasons for deletion, whilst solid arguments to keep have been given. the wub "?!" 00:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep unless a relevant rationale for deletion is forthcoming. Skomorokh 07:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Snow eep. Notability and sourcing seems solid, the rest is regular editing so we must keep per wp:AFD. -- Banjeboi 01:28, 21 January 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.