Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Douglas E. Richards

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 consensus is that it now passes GNG - further, the article has been significantly updated since the nomination. (non-admin closure) Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 01:10, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas E. Richards

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

No indication of notability; lots of writers but no indication of notable prizes or coverage in 3rd party secondary sources, etc.

WP:GNG Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:46, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the author's novel Wired is a New York Times Best Seller and the author has been the subject of in-depth coverage by reliable third-party sources, including [1], [2], etc. I am a bit taken aback by the apparent lack of
WP:BEFORE by the nominator and that no effort was put into tagging or improving the article before taking it straight to AfD. - Dravecky (talk) 06:47, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Ranked 13th for 1 week on a best seller list (not the NY Times' famous widely publicized one, you understand - a secondary one) does not make the book notable, nor would the notability of a book be inherited by an author. Moreover, two interviews on talk shows is not in-depth coverage that makes one notable, either. It may be a closer call than some, so it's at AFD, not PROD or speedy. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:10, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is the list that the Times puts at the top of their list-of-lists; it's the one that combines sales in hardcover, softcover, and electronic editions. Up against only e-books, Wired was ranked #9 for the week. - Dravecky (talk) 21:38, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Three Interviews seems to me to indicate notability. (I wrote the stub.) This is probably the wrong place to make the following comment, but here goes. I think some-one who has written several novels that sell well is more notable than episodes of television shows, that are covered extensively in Wikipedia, and at least on a par with an article on a murdered individual otherwise on no note (such as is on the front page of Wikipedia today.Kdammers (talk) 02:14, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep: I reviewed
WP:BEFORE requires he do before filing an AfD. I checked his contribution history, and found to my shock that in the course of over five hundred edits he made over the last two days, he filed the astonishing number of 51 AfDs, some of them as little as three minutes apart. Many of them have the same failures of WP:BEFORE as this one. Ravenswing 04:47, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. Sources are sufficient to establish notability.
talk) 16:15, 19 September 2014 (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.