Alfred Stanford: Fails the general and author -specific notability policies.  - UtherSRG (talk) 14:49, 3 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Authors , Military , United States of America ,  and New Jersey .  UtherSRG (talk) 14:49, 3 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Being in the military isn't notable by itself; might have a pass with AUTHOR, but I can't find reviews of his books.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:58, 3 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Oaktree b : .  Many reviews have been added.  Djflem ( talk ) 11:42, 9 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Tried to find book reviews of his first two novels in the Library of Congress newspaper archive from 1923-1925, nothing.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:02, 3 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete There is a credible claim of notability as an author, but unfortunately the sourcing in the article doesn't support the claim and I wasn't able to find in-depth sources about him and his work in a Google search.  Alansohn ( talk ) 16:26, 3 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Easily meets WP:NAUTHOR .  Here are various reviews for multiple of his books.  There are many more on newspapers.com: [1] , [2] , [3] , [4] , [5] , [6] .  Jfire ( talk ) 01:37, 4 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete a few old reviews don't satisfy WP:NAUTHOR , fails WP:GNG .  Mztourist ( talk ) 03:06, 4 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Multiple reviews of multiple works is routinely considered to satisfy WP:NAUTHOR , and WP:NTEMP .  Jfire ( talk ) 03:14, 4 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] User:Jfire which of the 4 heads of NAUTHOR says that?  3 states "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews", so reviews are not sufficient in themselves, unless the author created a significant or well-known work or collective body of work.  Mztourist ( talk ) 04:49, 4 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] In practice, the way "significant or well-known" is determined in AfD discussions is via the presence (or absence) of reviews.  Examples: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philip Shelby , Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan Collins (writer) , Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dawn Prince-Hughes , Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lara Prescott .  Jfire ( talk ) 04:58, 4 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Those decisions obviously do not comply with the clear wording of NAUTHOR.  Mztourist ( talk ) 09:51, 4 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I've expanded the article with additional sources and reviews for all but two of his books.  I hope this is enough to meet WP:HEY .  Jfire ( talk ) 03:55, 4 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per reviews found by Jfire, which meet my understanding of both AUTHOR and GNG.  Espresso Addict ( talk ) 22:08, 4 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Works have been the primary subject of reviews, thus satisfying WP:NAUTHOR.  Djflem ( talk ) 09:57, 6 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment User:Espresso Addict and User:Djflem which head of WP:NAUTHOR do you believe he meets?  If you are relying on 3 note that it states: "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews."  So reviews are not sufficient in themselves.  Mztourist ( talk ) 05:46, 9 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Which part of "or reviews" is unclear to you?  Djflem ( talk ) 11:35, 9 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] "or reviews" is perfectly clear, but you are ignoring the "In addition", which means that reviews are secondary to the first sentence requiring the subject author to have "created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work." which has not been established.  Mztourist ( talk ) 03:24, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Not ignoring a thing, that's your assumption.  (spare us).  As it the idea that Alfred Stanford has not created a significant collective body of work despite reviews that confirm that.  Djflem ( talk ) 19:37, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No assumption made, that's clearly what 3 says.  If reviews were all that was required then why would 3 be worded as it is?  Mztourist ( talk ) 03:46, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Wikipedia requires Wikipedia:Reliable sources .  Djflem ( talk ) 05:15, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting as there is disagreement over whether WP:NAUTHOR is met by having reviews of books by the author.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  17:57, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Reviews are the obvious way to establish that an author has created a noteworthy body of work.  That's not just common sense; it's how WP:NAUTHOR has been applied day in and day out.  I daresay this should not have been relisted.  XOR'easter ( talk ) 23:46, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Sorry to disappoint you, XOR'easter .  I like there to be a clear consensus before closing an AFD.  Otherwise, a closure is likely to be challenged at Deletion review .  And, unfortunately, we have fewer and fewer admins patrolling AFDs, closing discussions so the few of us who do tend to review a lot of AFDs.  But many AFDs are closed before their relisting period ends so that might happen.  Liz Read!  Talk!  04:45, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : The added reviews make it clear that this passes WP:GNG .  -- Mike 🗩 17:27, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep' Really history in this article with viable secondary sources.  Passes WP:AUTHOR .  scope_creep Talk 17:16, 14 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Passes WP:NAUTHOR , which I will concede is a low bar.  Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:46, 15 October 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: keep