Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaron Gwyn


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:47, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Aaron Gwyn

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

The subject does not fit WP:ACADEMIC He's published in a few places--some of them notable--but overall he doesn't clear the hurtle of notability. He hasn't won any awards to distinguish himself as a scholar, doesn't hold a specific chair or title at his institution and isn't even a full professor. In terms of WP:WRITER, the other question of GNG, he doesn't have work cited by his peers. Note, the subject has heavily edited his page, and has consistently deleted attempts to get this AfD through. Any input appreciated. Jimsteele9999 (talk) 01:53, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2012 July 15.  Snotbot   t &bull; c &raquo;  02:07, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note - "has consistently deleted attempts to get this AfD through" is actually Jimsteele9999 mistaken believe that PROD is AfD and hence the prod tag cannot be removed. Jimsteele9999 proposed deletion (endorsed by JFHJr) was contested by Aarongwyn by removal of the prod tag. This removal was undone by Jimsteele9999, again removed by Aarongwyn, which was this time reverted by Bbb23. Explicit declined prod deletion as prod was contested. -- KTC (talk) 03:03, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * For my part I was confused by the language in the tag and failed to look at the language at WP:CONTESTED. The language in the policy makes it clear that the tag may be removed without an explanation in the edit summary or on the Talk page, whereas the language in the tag is less clear (to me). The tag language says you can remove the tag for any reason, followed by "However, please explain why you object to the deletion, either in your edit summary or on the talk page."


 * I mistakenly thought that meant you had to do one of those two things (and Gwyn did neither). I apologize for my confusion, but I believe the tag language should be changed to track the language of the policy more closely. I just looked at the template Talk page, and in March someone noted this, but the reqeust was to get the policy changed, not the tag. I don't know what happened after that, but obviously the policy has not changed, and I don't see a follow-up suggestion on the policy Talk page. Sorry for the long-winded explanation.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:08, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clearing that up. Sorry for the confusion. So then, how are you voting?Jimsteele9999 (talk) 23:29, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete — The limited reviews and other third party coverage indicate the subject fails both WP:GNG and WP:WRITER. I agree that having been published somewhere isn't the same as having received coverage indicating the significance of the publication — clearly not everyone published enjoys derivative significance. This subject's work is demonstrably below the threshold of WP:ANYBIO. WP:PROFESSOR is also a far cry for the reasons stated above — and I found both citations and h-index in the single digits. JFHJr (㊟) 03:08, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  Gongshow  Talk 19:14, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  Gongshow  Talk 19:14, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Some sources have been added since this was nominated, including a review of one of his books in the Boston Globe. I just added another. These would seem to count as significant coverage by reliable independent sources. Cmeiqnj (talk) 18:21, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 14:05, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: While adding sources helps the article, it still should be deleted because of failing WP:WRITER. For specifics, see JFHjr's arguments above. Specifically, the citations and h index in the single digits. Jimsteele9999 (talk) 16:40, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, citations and h index only apply to WP:ACADEMIC - not to WP:WRITER where the criterion is more like WP:GNG. --MelanieN (talk) 18:21, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 *  Weak keep He does not meet the criteria for WP:ACADEMIC but I believe he may meet the criteria of WP:AUTHOR. His short story collection in particular got some mainstream reviews. I have reworked the article a little to emphasize his literary work. --MelanieN (talk) 18:19, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Changing from "weak keep" to "keep" based on the improvements to the article by Colapeninsula. Good work. --MelanieN (talk) 14:50, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: The Kirkus review (from Feb) shows up twice. I don't think repeating the same review makes the article any mroe sourced. The newspaper review helps, as I mentioned, but overall still doesn't make the reviews substantial enough to pass WP:WRITER. See JFHjr's rationale above. Jimsteele9999 (talk) 19:21, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You're right about the Kirkus review; I meant to delete the earlier citation when I added the later one. Sorry. In any case Kirkus is not much of a notability maker (they tend to review just about everything), so the Kirkus links are more for information than for notability. About JFHjr, I'm not clear which part of their argument you find so persuasive. I already pointed out that citation and h-index are not relevant criteria for authors. As for their point that "having been published somewhere" does not amount to notability, that is both obvious and a straw man argument; nobody said it did. The question is whether his published work has received significant third-party reviews. This author did get a couple of third-party reviews; whether they are enough for notability is up for discussion here. --MelanieN (talk) 20:58, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * So we can thus agree that the Kirkus reviews don't count for "substanial third-party coverage" in terms of what we need for notability. I agree they are great for informational purposes, though. You are right, they aren't selective about what they review, and moreover they are not a major independent source, coverage we would need. This relates to JFHjr's rationale. He said "having been published somewhere isn't the same as having received coverage indicating the significance of the publication — clearly not everyone published enjoys derivative significance." In other words, (and I am attempting to paraphrase him here), the fact he published in Esquire is notable. The fact there isn't a review of that piece, it wasn't collected in say a Best American Short Stories series and/or no major independent source mentions it, makes the fact he published it notable but the all important aspect of lack of coverage lead to lack of notability. Note, there are authors who create pages (like Aaron Gwyn, who create and edit the page in attempts to create publicity) and are published in The New Yorker and Harpers. These are very notable places to publish work. But if there is no reviews of their work (this often happens with writers who focus on short stories--short story collections sell less than novels, and receive less reviews) then as authors they aren't notable enough for WP:WRITER. I mean, even having reviews isn't always enough. Look, there's two Kirkus reviews for Gwyn. We mentioned and agree they don't hold much weight. Then there's one Boston Gloge review. That's good. Then one snippet from a small local newspaper. That's just not enough for notability. The rationale for WP:WRITER is there for a reason.Jimsteele9999 (talk) 23:40, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Frankie (talk) 18:13, 30 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep He's also got coverage in Publishers Weekly, Library Journal and Creative Loafing and some briefer mentions praising his work. WP:WRITER is full of vague terms about "significance" and "widespread coverage" that you can argue about forever, but he clearly passes WP:GNG. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:18, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I've added a few of those citations to the article. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:54, 31 July 2012 (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.