Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Vlaskovits

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. Tone 11:46, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Vlaskovits[edit]

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

The sources do not reference notability of the person. There is barely one reliable independant source which speaks of him directly, and that too tends to focus on his book. The other reliable source tends to only be a listing of best-selling books, and not about the subject. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 09:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 17:19, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Unquestioned keep.The person who writes a NYT best seller is a notable author, and nothing more really needs to be shown or proved, though such a person in practice will also get reviewed widely enough to meet the GNG. What authors are notable for is writing important books, just as athletes are notable for athletic accomplishments or scientists their scientific work , or actors their performances, and nothing about their personal life needs to be included, though it's usually good to have a little if its available. If an author were to have sources only about him as a person that do not refer substantially to his work, I do not think they even contribute to notability as an author. DGG ( talk ) 02:49, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG and WP:NAUTHOR Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 13:15, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dea db eef 06:48, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG - virtually no coverage in reliable sources and nothing that would constitute significant coverage. Fails all points at WP:NAUTHOR - 1: not an important figure or widely cited; 2: hasn't introduced anything new or revolutionary; 3: too soon to tell if the subject's work will be considered significant; 4: see 3. Hack (talk) 09:16, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I did some revisions on the article, which looks ok, even though it lacks secondary sources about the person (and not only his books). Usually I would vote for a deletion, but this article contains the bare minimum to build a solid article overtime --Rubyface (talk) 09:30, 17 May 2013 (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.