Deletion of Paul Cook (author)

Comment: I don't see where he meets ,  Yes he wrote books that were published by notable publishers, some of those books have some reviews and minor mentions. user:hroest mentions book reviews in magazines, but there is no evidence that those are independent, are the magazines owned or directed by the publisher of the books, who want to sell the books?  As for being put in an archive, http://www.gutenberg.org/ Project Gutenberg has lots of books in their archive, that does not make the authors notable at Wikipedia. No objections to recreation, if notability can be shown, but I don't see that happening
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:AUTHOR)

Comment: it seems at least one of his books got some reviews and discussion Tintagel (novel) with three reviews listed in different magazines so that seems like sufficient coverage to pass . It is not much but I think he passes the bar. Also it seems like his work is even http://www.azarchivesonline.org/xtf/view?docId=ead/asu/cook.xml conserved by ASU which for me settles the case
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Locus (magazine)|Locus'' lists two published reviews of his books ''The Engines of Dawn'' and ''Fortress on the Sun'' http://www.locusmag.com/Magazine//Reviews18.html. ISFDB lists four reviews and a Locus best first novel award for ''Tintagel'' http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?8058, one review for ''The Alejandra Variations'' http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?19267, six reviews for ''Duende Meadow'' http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?19266, one for ''Halo'' http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?9584, three for ''On the Rim of the Mandala'' http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?19265, two for ''Fortress on the Sun'' (including the ''Locus'' one) http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?9450, and three for ''The Engines of Dawn'' (including ''Locus'') http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?19489, Most or all of the reviews themselves are not online, I think, but that should not be relevant; they are independent of the author and reliably published in wide-circulation genre magazines. I think that's more than enough for . The nomination smacks of : he was a notable SF author in the 1980s, and although sources from the 1980s can be hard to access (too old to be easily found on line, too new to be scanned and archived) once notable always notable
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:AUTHOR||WP:RECENTISM)

Comment: just because an author's books are wikinotable (requiring multiple |reviews), doesnt necessarily mean that the author is, as  (no. 3) requires works to not just be reviewed but also to be "significant or well-known", none of them are held by 3figure+ libraries, most are held in under 50 libraries, the highest are is ''Duende Meadow'' (https://www.worldcat.org/title/duende-meadow/oclc/12688614?referer=br&ht=edition 64 libraries), and ''The Alejandra variations'' (https://www.worldcat.org/title/alejandra-variations/oclc/11222248?referer=br&ht=edition 55 libraries), it does look funny, though, when there are/could be wikiarticles on 2 or more (even 5?:)) books but not one on the author
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:NAUTHOR)