Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Britton

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 TO DELETE. One of the Delete comments was "per nom", but since the nominator later withdraw his nominating statement, you have to wonder if that doesn't put that comment into limbo... another Delete comment appears based on a malformed Google search as is pointed out. There is really only one unambiguous Keep comment, so I don't think closing this as a straight-out Keep is in order. The Keep commentor makes good points, though, although on the other hand he doesn't provide actual cites... a relist would perhaps be in order, but a NO CONSENSUS close can be relisted at anyone's discrection. Herostratus 07:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Britton

David Britton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Writer doesn't seem notable enough; little links to other pages and information pertaining to the works themselves, just mention that they are controversial. CyberGhostface 18:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC) EDIT: See my last post below.[reply]

• Delete: "David Britton author" gets 13 Ghits. Not exactly an overwhelming assertion of notability. Moreschi 20:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --
  Folantin 13:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep -- If you google "David Britton author" you don't receive that many hits because it's an odd literal. If you google "David Britton" author you receive 10,200 hits. That's not notable? The guy has written a number of controversial books and comic books over 30 years, he's been a partner in a successful publishing firm in the UK, he's helped "rediscover" musicians such as P.J. Proby. How is that not notable? I don't get it. I'm looking at
  WP:Bio and it specifically declares this as "notable": "Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work." David Britton more than meets this criterion... I disagreed when you deleted my Supervert entry, but now I feel like you're just hunting down any entries I've made. These may be "alternative" interests but they seem perfectly notable to me and to the other users who've edited the David Britton page. I'll sign this with my four tildes but I feel like one very discouraged, disappointed Wikipedian who's starting to think that the guys over at Wikitruth have some grounds for their rancor Crawlspace 15:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

If you were to actually look in the past logs, I've nominated several articles in the past for deletion besides yours, and I nominated only two of yours weeks apart. And not because you specifically wrote them. I do have problems with several users here, but you're not one of them, and even if I did I wouldn't deliberately sabotage Wikipedia just to settle a score.

The only connection between the articles I nominate for deletion is that they're all in the horror genre, a section that I usually browse here. I recently nominated several Saw character articles for deletion, and most of them were by the same user. I did it not because I didn't like the editor, I did it because I felt the characters were not notable. He didn't take it personally, either.--CyberGhostface 17:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as insufficiently notable. Author has not been the subject of non-trivial published works by multiple separate sources that are independent of that subject itself. If he has received "multiple independent reviews of or awards for [his] work", I have not found evidence of it. Please provide citations, if available, and I will be more than happy to reevaluate. -- Satori Son 15:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment When I nominated Britton for deletion, I was under the impression that Britton was only a minor cult writer like supervert was. I just did a google search, and while I still don't find him notable, I no longer believe that he is on grounds for deletion as there are numerous sites on him. And I think the subject of non-trivial published works by multiple separate sources that are independent of that subject itself. rule is pretty strict; for example, Christopher Pike has his own article and I don't think he has any works written about him. HOWEVER...I do think the article needs a lot more work such as sources, links, etc.--CyberGhostface 04:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If you have found reliable, third-party sources, please add them to the article. Like I said, I was unable to locate any, but if I am wrong please tell me and I will admit my mistake and strike my opinion as well. -- Satori Son 05:18, 25 November 2006 (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.