Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elliot Ackerman

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. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 04:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Elliot Ackerman

Elliot Ackerman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

non-notable per WP:AUTHOR, book comes out in a month WP:BKCRYSTAL Deunanknute (talk) 16:20, 22 January 2015 (UTC) Deunanknute (talk) 16:20, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with this AfD. As an author, his debut novel is starting to receive critical attention. He is notable under Wikipedia's general notability guidelines. I think we should also get someone to look at it in terms of WP:Soldier. TeriEmbrey (talk) 16:28, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"starting to receive critical attention" is not notable. Under which part of WP:SOLDIER does he fall? I was unable to find any notable awards, contributions, or roles. Deunanknute (talk) 16:55, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. Current article clearly needs significant cleanup regardless. Ackerman has certainly written (and spoken) for a lot of high profile media: The New Republic, The Daily Beast, The New Yorker, NPR, and so on. And, often, they are having him write about himself, which seems somehow substantively different than just being a columnist with a byline. But it's still not independent, third-party coverage of him. There are slight mentions in connection with his novel in Vanity Fair (here) and the Los Angeles Review of Books (here). The novel got a full review in Kirkus (here). Arguably, that speaks more to the book's notability than to Ackerman's, but given the entirety of the picture, I don't think it's entirely unacceptable to keep the author as the primary topic. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:46, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kirkus will review books for pay [[1]], which questions its value as a notability indicator. Deunanknute (talk) 18:02, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As discussed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 180#Kirkus Reviews, Kirkus reviews remain evidence of notability unless they are in the review-for-pay Kirkus Indie program, which this one is not. --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:01, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as updated. Author has been extensively published in major publications in the recent few years and I have made a major edit to the entry to reflect that and other support for notability.Firstmilast (talk) 20:19, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the places you mentioned "He has been interviewed in The Washington Post, The New York Times, and The Wall Street Journal and appeared on Charlie Rose, The Colbert Report, NPR's Talk of the Nation, Meet the Press, CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, Al Jazeera and PBS NewsHour among others.", and in nearly all of them he was interviewed because of his position as CEO of Americans Elect, not for any other, notable, reasons. Deunanknute (talk) 20:51, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  21:43, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  21:43, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  21:43, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per the general notability guideline, it doesn't really matter why he was interviewed so extensively. National coverage is national coverage. In any case, the argument is not that he is notable because he is CEO, but because of the nature and breadth of the coverage he has received. Furthermore, there is additional coverage of the individual based on his service in Fallujah:

• Book detailing Ackerman's actions in Fallujah
• Additional Fallujah details
• this CBS news interview

I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 01:06, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 21:19, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (address) @ 20:14, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Notable for his activities and for his already-notable novel (in additon to sources already mentioned, note (Michiko Kakutani's early praise in The New York Times [2]). At this point, WP:CRYSTAL isn't warranted and would be pointless. --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:13, 29 January 2015 (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.