Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marc estrin
- 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The result was keep, nom withdrawn. NAC by Cliff smith talk 00:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Marc estrin[edit]
- Marc estrin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
No notable works - all works are redlinked; having been reviewed by a major work does not constitute notability YixilTesiphon TalkContribs 15:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not because of notability concerns, but because of advertising concerns. The article would need a complete re-write in order to become encyclopedic.TN‑X-Man 16:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Advertising, and it fails Geogre's law. The guy can't afford an upper case letter, but we're to advertise the wonders of him? Utgard Loki (talk) 17:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment may meet WP:N per news, books and scholar searches [1] [2] [3] certainly nowhere need a speedy or amongst the worst we get at AfD. Give me an evening or so and let me see what I can do.:) Sticky Parkin 19:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please take another look at the article now boys and girls, admire the I think perhaps more unbiased section on his writing career, maybe there is hope.:) I mean there's still plenty of room for improvement/NPOVing perhaps, but I think it looks more like one of our articles, and it has nine cites in the article. Sticky Parkin 21:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also- having been discussed in major works is exactly what does confer notability- what's noted in WP:RS. Whether his books are red links or have a wikipedia article makes no odds- we are not a reliable source, the papers are. No-one's tried to make him an article perhaps, but that could be an oversight on our part. Also, his individual books may not be notable, but he himself might still be, due to all his various books added up. I'm just saying-we can't judge by our red links. Not that I've personally heard of this bloke or have any investment in the subject. :) Sticky Parkin 21:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Sticky Parkin's massive improvements. Nom withdrawn. YixilTesiphon TalkContribs 22:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but: Yes, it is vastly improved. It is a keep. I am still concerned that the first paragraph sounds like a fan site or publisher's bio. Its tone and information are for people who already know, love, and want to have tea with the author. To be encyclopedic, it should really stick to why this person is known, why this person is in the news, why this person is interesting and then give only a minimalist biography, with none of the "chatting round the fire side" quality. Utgard Loki (talk) 13:36, 22 August 2008 (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.