Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alec Michod (2nd nomination)

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 delete. Yeah, Cullen is likely on the right track, here. If an article on the book appears, this should be redirected there. Courcelles 23:50, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR. Ryan Vesey Review me! 14:41, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:01, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could this be speedied per CSD G4? Ryan Vesey Review me! 16:29, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete - Isn't this a case of personal webpage or personal article within WP? Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 17:36, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It is not quite so clearcut, Eduemoni. In my opinion, his novel The White City is probably notable, because it has received multiple reviews in reliable sources. If that article existed, we could redirect there. Currently, its a redirect to the article about the World's Fair. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:39, 2 August 2011 (UTC)there. I don't think the novelist hi[reply]

• Note - Notability is not inherited. Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 00:18, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep actually, what makes an author notable is the notability of his work. What else would it be? And similarly for other creative professionals. Painters become notable because of the paintings they produce, architects for what the build, scientists for what they discover. The only question is whether the author of a single notable book should have an article as well as the book--my preference is to merge to the author if necessary, because a person may come to write more notable books, and it also provides a place to mention his less-thanotable work, while an article on a book has almost no potential for further growth. (There might be a question about whether the book is notable and that is shown by reviews in Village Voice & [The Chicago Tribune http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/chicagotribune/access/515885411.html?dids=515885411:515885411&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Dec+28%2C+2003&author=Reporting%3A+Jeff+Lyon&pub=Chicago+Tribune&desc=WHAT+A+TIME+IT+WAS.+.+.+AND+WAS+.+.+.+AND+WAS+.+.+.+AND+WAS+.+.+.&pqatl=google]--mong others from a quick search on Google news archive. And it's in over 372 World Cat libraries) There's also a chapter on him in a 3rd party source, Believer book of writers talking to writers . So it seems there are sufficient source for notability. Did nobody look at AfD1--some of the sources are mentioned there. DGG ( talk ) 03:31, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DGG: I see different notability guidelines for books (WP:NBOOK) and authors (WP:AUTHOR). Do you think that they should be consolidated? --Noleander (talk) 21:34, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - TP 14:25, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete He's only written one book, which many people have done, but don't get their article.Curb Chain (talk) 16:56, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The WP:AUTHOR guideline lists four criteria for notability:

1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.
2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
3. The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
4. The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

The sources do not demonstrate that any of those four have been met. --Noleander (talk) 21:32, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per lack of sources on Yahoo and Google that could help a biography. SwisterTwister talk 21:54, 9 August 2011 (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.