Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philip F. Deaver

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 (but only in a trimmed-down form) — Caknuck (talk) 21:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Philip F. Deaver

Philip F. Deaver (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Unsourced, few Google hits, appears notability is a minor award given by the Georgia Press Club. Main problem is few outside sources - it is mostly self referenced, and when I went to look for viable outside sources I found few that meet w:BLP notability guidelines. A related author to this one was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gary_Forrester. Two separate editors PROD-ed the article, but its creator just took it down without improving it where it needs to be improved. A lot of unnecessary unnotable minutia from the person's life comprises the bulk of the article, which was the same with the Forrester article that was deleted. David Shankbone 15:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Gary Forrester most likely created this article as a means to make himself seem notable.Comment While he has more claims to notability, there are BLP vios abounding, the claim to notability may not be strong enough. And there also seems to be a COI problem arising. --Smashville^BONK! 17:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Notable enough. Part of the nominator's argument is the abundance of personal data. That is not a basis for deletion. Let the article develope. One third party source calls Deaver the best living American short story writer. The article has sources. Why dont we concentrate on deleting thousands of trivial meaningless articles on cartoon characters and non notable video games that cluttr wikipedia instead of going on a witchhunt for notable intellectuals who are contributing to our society. Decoratrix 17:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • A very small part of my reasoning has to do with the largess of the article being about the minutia of this person's "Journey through Life". Several PRODs have been done and removed without the article "developing". There's no witch hunt here, please AGF - I'm not a deletionist and I think in the year and a half I've only nominated three articles for deletion. Fact is, this person doesn't seem particularly notable and if he is, then sources should be preferred - sources as in references. Being mentioned by Garrison Keiler (who mentions a large swathe of writers, many unnotable) and a minor award here and there isn't our bar. --David Shankbone 17:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment for Admin Several PRODs have been done and removed without the article "developing" - I think Shankbone needs an administrative notice on this point. The PROD is not a cattle-prod which contributers can use to startle other contributers into "fixing" an article.Yeago (talk) 14:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• • Paaaleeese "notable intellectuals who are contributing to our society"???What a load of horse sh#t. Save it for people who deserve that kind of praise please.--70.109.223.188 17:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Please be WP:CIVIL. —David Eppstein 04:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep but cut down. Awards predate the internet and Google and much of his attention is largely from non-digital lit-mags. I agree with the 'Journey through Life' aspect that Shankbone mentions (but I'm not really sure that deletion is an appropriate cure). As for sources not being out there that fit w:BLP, he published an autobiography a little over a year ago. On a side note, I don't think its appropriate to delete an article for lack of sources before ever experimenting with the fact tag.Yeago 20:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

You were PROD-ed on this twice and never once supplied a reference, but just kept removing the PROD: so here we are. Improve the article, but as it stands now it doesn't seem meritorious of staying up. It can always be reconstituted later. --David Shankbone 20:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not on the Wikipedia payroll. Sorry buddy. Put a flag up and call for others. I've already done enough for this article. You can't just dish out editor ultimatums.Yeago 21:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps if you had left the PROD tags up somebody else could have seen the article was questionable and taken steps to remedy the problems. --David Shankbone 21:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps if you had left lack-of-source tags somebody else could have seen the article was questionable and taken steps to remedy the problems.Yeago 21:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not on the Wikipedia payroll. Sorry buddy. --David Shankbone 21:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

You don't have to be on the Wikipedia payroll to use the appropriate tags. You seem to have a dim understanding of the PROD tag you are so quick to use, education follows. Firstly, you cannot PROD a person; you PROD an article. This is a volunteer effort, and you don't get to issue decrees to other editors who are at least as lazy as you. Secondly, it is not a functional equivalent of lesser tags such as fact tags: one may agree with the reason for a PROD without agreeing that a PROD tag is appropriate (read the tag, it says more or less this).Yeago 21:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, now is my turn to educate you: I did some research on the individual, as I mention in my opening statement, and found few sources, if any, that indicate notability. Two separate people PRODed the article; only one kept removing it. --David Shankbone 21:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Right, but now you're just repeating things already addressed. End of wiki-spat, I guess.Yeago 21:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 03:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. It probably doesn't bear on whether this should be deleted, but nominator David Shankbone violated procedure by nominating this article a second time for WP:PROD. Once an article has been prodded and the prod removed, it is no longer an eligible candidate for the prod process. This should be taken into account when reading the exchange above in which Shankbone berates a contributor for removing the second prod. —David Eppstein 04:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. He has had short stories appear in some well-respected collections. That's good enough. --C S 10:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Can somebody perhaps provide some evidence that the collections in which stories appeared and the (as far as I can see) one award that is mentioned are significant enough to convey notability? Thanks, --Crusio 10:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Tough thing to convey if you're unfamiliar with literary magazines. You'd have to do your own footwork on the topic of lit-mags. Suffice it to say these are by no means 'zines'. Also, Google 'Flannery O' Connor' if the existence of its article is not enough.Yeago 14:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Article has been significantly cut down, satisfying my (at least) anxiety over its bloat.Yeago 14:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep -- Tough to say since there's not enough truly conclusive evidence in the article, and literary awards (particularly for poetry) are hard to judge from the outside. Nonetheless, an O'Henry Award is a major award for short fiction, as is the Flannery O'Conner award. The Kenyon Review and the New England Review are important literary magazines (I don't know the rest). Put with three published books (two by University presses) and a professorship, I'm willing to say that notability has been established unless someone more familiar with the literary world can argue otherwise. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 05:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
• weak keep or, per yeago, cut down the vanity stuff... Tiptopper 21:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

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.