Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William McKay Aitken

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. John254 01:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

William McKay Aitken

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log

)

Non notable bio with no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 00:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 00:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 01:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. He has written several books, most of which have been published by well-known publishers such as Penguin. I added some references. I think he is notable as a writer. --Eastmain (talk) 01:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Multiple sources bleeding clearly listed. — goethean ॐ 01:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Can you please expand? From what I read in these "references" there is only one reliable source. And, this source is an "opinion" section of a newspaper which reviews a books of the subject. This might be one reliable source, but more is needed to establish notability - such as claims to notability and reliable sources to back these claims up. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 01:59, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Three newspapers are cited as references: The Telegraph (India), The Times of India, The Statesman (India) --Eastmain (talk) 02:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply Three are cited, but only one deals with the subject of the article. I am not disputing that three sources are cited, I am questioning their validity in verifying the notability of the subject. I only see one relevant source so far, and it is only a passing reference. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ism schism, I confess to some curiosity as to what would not be a "passing reference" in your view, as on earlier occasions you have deemed entire chapters of books, completely devoted to a topic, sometimes dozens of pages long, "passing references." Your comments might be easier to understand if this point were clarified.John Z (talk) 03:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Rather than listing a ton of articles for deletion, please make some effort to expand them. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Passes
  WP:CREATIVE through "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". If someone with access to JSTOR could look at this [1], it might be a valuable addition. Jim Miller (talk) 04:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Per sources given above and guideline cited by Jim Miller.John Z (talk) 04:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Well published by mainstream house (Penguin Books). ~ priyanath talk 00:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Summary: we can hardly have an article for every travel writer.
  • Jim Miller: I looked at the JSTOR link. It's a brief one-page book review of his book, in a specialized academic journal (the Journal of Asian Studies), clearly not intended for general audiences.
  • The newspaper reference in the Times of India is indeed marginal; Mr. Aitken gets one sentence.
  • The Telegraph article contains a one paragraph review of a recently published book.
  • The Statesman article is behind a paywall and not accessible to me, and not susceptible of close examination.
  • I expect that any better-than-awful travel writer can aspire to a one paragraph review in a newspaper, a single quotation, and maybe a short review in an academic journal specializing in the area of their travels. Mr. Aitken's notability, I conclude, is so marginal a case of
    WP:CREATIVE that to include him would be twisting the guideline past its primary intent, which is to include people worthy of notice for a good long time. Best, RayAYang (talk) 01:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Keep Multiple books, published by Oxford & Penguin is notability, or would be for any other author. There's nothing marginal about these publishers. A review of a travel book in an academic journal is sufficiently rare that it shows specially distinctive notability, more than a general book review. All subjects are treated equally here, we do not have special more restrictive standards for travel writers than others. DGG (talk) 01:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment As there are numerous keep votes above, and per Jim Miller, I change my vote to keep. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 15:38, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note to closing admin Nominator changed vote to keep. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 15:38, 20 July 2008 (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.