Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alton Gansky
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
- 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 article is notable, as discussed in the AFD. Has received multiple notable reviews. (non-admin closure) Vacation9 00:02, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alton Gansky
- Alton Gansky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I came across this via PROD and after some searching, I found multiple reviews in trades and the like. It's enough to where I think it would probably pass, but to be fair I'm giving it an AfD debate just in case. I know that trade reviews are often debated as to whether or not they're considered trivial or not.
(｡◕‿◕｡) 07:41, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 16:22, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 16:22, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - trade and other reviews and references make this a perfectly acceptable, if a little short, biography of someone with a good collection of material. I personally don't consider trade reviews to be trivial at all, so I'd let this fly. FishBarking? 01:55, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relistedto generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ]
- Strong Keep. Obviously notable. Has received starred reviews in Library Journal and multiple reviews in Publisher's Weekly. In addition, is published by well-known publishing houses. While the article needs major work, the subject is without a doubt notable.--SouthernNights (talk) 20:36, 16 February 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.