Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Chris Roberts (author): Difference between revisions

< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 05:41, 18 April 2009 editSandstein (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators188,330 edits Closing debate, result was no consensus← Previous edit		Revision as of 16:15, 18 April 2009 edit undoDreamGuy (talk \| contribs)33,601 edits →Chris Roberts (author): response to knowingly false accusationsNext edit →
Line 23:		Line 23:
	At the risk of proving I am indecisive, you have a point - the wording suggests that it has to be both. I would offer to try to build a consensus around deleting the biography and producing one on the book, but it makes almost no contribution of signicance.--] (]) 21:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)		At the risk of proving I am indecisive, you have a point - the wording suggests that it has to be both. I would offer to try to build a consensus around deleting the biography and producing one on the book, but it makes almost no contribution of signicance.--] (]) 21:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
	::The closing admin needs to be aware that DreamGuy is a well-known wiki-stalker of mine who has been blocked multiple times for edit-waring and other violations (see ). DreamGuy is wrong when he says that ] requires BOTH "significant" and "well-known". The wording is "a significant ''OR'' well-known work", and requires "''MULTIPLE'' independent periodical articles or reviews", not "''plenty'' of reviews" as DreamGuy falsely states. Also, DreamGuy is wrong that the book is self-published with only 2,000 copies. As I will not assume bad faith, I can only assume that DreamGuy has not bothered to read the entire article, or he would know that the book has since been widely published in both Europe and North America. The bar for this article's inclusion is clearly met by the fact that this author has written a "well known" book, as established by the "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" that have been located. ] (]) 19:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)		::The closing admin needs to be aware that DreamGuy is a well-known wiki-stalker of mine who has been blocked multiple times for edit-waring and other violations (see ). DreamGuy is wrong when he says that ] requires BOTH "significant" and "well-known". The wording is "a significant ''OR'' well-known work", and requires "''MULTIPLE'' independent periodical articles or reviews", not "''plenty'' of reviews" as DreamGuy falsely states. Also, DreamGuy is wrong that the book is self-published with only 2,000 copies. As I will not assume bad faith, I can only assume that DreamGuy has not bothered to read the entire article, or he would know that the book has since been widely published in both Europe and North America. The bar for this article's inclusion is clearly met by the fact that this author has written a "well known" book, as established by the "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" that have been located. ] (]) 19:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
			:::It should be noted that the above is false... it was actually Esasus who was blocked for harassing me, not the other way around. It looks like he's still going around lying.] (]) 16:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

	:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page. <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div>		:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page. <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div>

Revision as of 16:15, 18 April 2009

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 no consensus. Sandstein 05:41, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Chris Roberts (author)

Does not meet notability criteria Sabrebd (talk) 18:47, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Weak Keep. We have one legitimate source at the moment (interview on Australian national radio). Is that "significant critical attention" as per WP:CREATIVE? Perhaps - but more review references etc would be a great help. Tevildo (talk) 20:15, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Keep - Meets the criteria for WP:CREATIVE. I have linked to another legitimate source from the guardian.co.uk HERE, and other independent references can also be found. Esasus (talk) 16:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Just so we are clear which bit of the criteria are we looking for? Is it:(c) 'has won significant critical attention'?--Sabrebd (talk) 18:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I am looking at WP:CREATIVE The person has created ... a significant or well-known work ... that has been the subject of ... multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. Esasus (talk) 19:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok thanks that is helpful. It cannot be considered 'significant', (given the only academic review found is negative), but it could be 'well known'. We have four sources now - which is multiple. It seems a low bar, as every academic book would pass it, and therefore every academic with a book, but there it is. I am prepared to accept this as grounds for keeping the article.--Sabrebd (talk) 00:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Delete No amount of stretching can make this a "significant or well known work"... needs to be both that AND receive plenty of reviews... and a couple of reviews is certainly on the extreme low end of "multiple". At best the argument to keep would maybe make an article about the book possible, but not the author, as of the two the book is the more well known. And, frankly, a book that's self-published with only 2,000 copies doesn't cut it either. DreamGuy (talk) 21:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

At the risk of proving I am indecisive, you have a point - the wording suggests that it has to be both. I would offer to try to build a consensus around deleting the biography and producing one on the book, but it makes almost no contribution of signicance.--Sabrebd (talk) 21:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The closing admin needs to be aware that DreamGuy is a well-known wiki-stalker of mine who has been blocked multiple times for edit-waring and other violations (see block log). DreamGuy is wrong when he says that WP:CREATIVE requires BOTH "significant" and "well-known". The wording is "a significant OR well-known work", and requires "MULTIPLE independent periodical articles or reviews", not "plenty of reviews" as DreamGuy falsely states. Also, DreamGuy is wrong that the book is self-published with only 2,000 copies. As I will not assume bad faith, I can only assume that DreamGuy has not bothered to read the entire article, or he would know that the book has since been widely published in both Europe and North America. The bar for this article's inclusion is clearly met by the fact that this author has written a "well known" book, as established by the "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" that have been located. Esasus (talk) 19:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

It should be noted that the above is false... it was actually Esasus who was blocked for harassing me, not the other way around. It looks like he's still going around lying.DreamGuy (talk) 16:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

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.