Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Parks (author)

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. The ambiguity over "has been nominated for one several times" is worth looking into though, so I will request clarification on WT:BIO. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:52, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Parks (author)[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, WP:AUTHOR. Unable to find any secondary sources to establish notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 01:42, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:41, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:41, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Parks's first collection and some of his stories have been nominated for a number of awards. While the previous poster may not have been able to locate any secondary sources, I have managed to track down five in less than an hour, some of the content of which I have incorporated into the article. Given that the author's notability is not difficult to support, and a reasonable number of secondary sources are available, I do not believe the argument for deletion is sustainable. BPK (talk) 04:08, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews are not secondary sources. Also, could you provide something to support that the awards are "well-known and significant", per WP:ANYBIO. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 04:17, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that my vote is not made less valid by your quibble with the reasoning behind it, any more than yours is by my quibbles with it. That said, I have no objection to addressing them.

While the actual content of the interview quoted would likely be considered primary rather than secondary, the introduction to it, from which most of the material I cited comes, has no direct attribution to the author, and should be considered as deriving from the general knowledge of the interviewer or the editor of the publication. Hence, secondary.

As for your request regarding the awards: really? I would regard it as silly, since their significance is common knowledge to followers of the genre, but perhaps you are not among that coterie. In that instance, let me just point out that wikipedia itself attests to the significance of the awards through its articles on them; I therefore refer you to those articles. The World Fantasy Award has "been described by book critics such as The Guardian as a 'prestigious fantasy prize', and one of the three most prestigious speculative fiction awards, along with the Hugo and Nebula Awards (which cover both fantasy and science fiction)." The Mythopoeic Awards article contains no such highfalutin claim for them, merely noting that they are "given by the Mythopoeic Society to authors of outstanding works in the fields of myth, fantasy, and the scholarly study of these areas." However, if you propose deleting that article on that ground, I suspect you will raise a much bigger squawk than your proposal in regard to the present article.

You are on surer critical ground with the SF Age Reader's Poll; no article, and it's likely significant only to readers of that magazine, though certainly indicative of the popularity of the stories voted on by those readers. Citing it, however, supports the point made with the first two awards; the author is both recognized by and significant to his audience.

BPK (talk) 15:49, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He has been nominated for the "World Fantasy Award" once, and the "Mythopoeic Award" once. This does not meet the criteria outlined at WP:ANYBIO: "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times". Magnolia677 (talk) 21:21, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing there about it being the same one. BPK (talk) 03:58, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Several" doesn't mean two. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:52, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:12, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:09, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say KEEP. He's published extensively, gotten nominated for awards, and had some small secondary notice.NoahB (talk) 00:07, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@NoahB: to bold his keep.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:09, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Can be sourced to at least 3 articles in Fantasy & Science Fiction.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:34, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
note that 3 of his books, including The Ogre's Wife, introduction written by Parke Godwin, are bluelinked. I added a couple of sources. I suspect that this got nominated because "Richard Parks" is a deidedly hard name to search - there are even other authors named Richard Parks. Honestly, guys, the Actors Guild insists that actors change their names to something unique. Keep and suggest that this this writer change his name to Richardopoulous Parkskinsky - or somehting else that would be easy to search.

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.