Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adrian Magson


 * 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. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Adrian Magson

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Content is basically empty, and provides no reasoning for the creation of the page. The one link provided is self-written, and therefore may not comply with verifiability policy. Was going to nominate for speedy deletion, but thought to get consensus here first. &mdash; Rudget contributions 19:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. This article should not be deleted as there is no reason whatsoever to delete it. The author is adequately well known and the article is non-promotional. Obviously more information needs to be added over time by other users, but the article is a start. Will add some more links and a reasoning for creation on the article's discussion page. --Hontogaichiban (talk) 19:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't say it was promotional. It's just that there is a distinct lack of reliable, independent sources that can assert the claims, at present there is one, by the author. The ISBN's check out, but I know many authors that have published books and haven't got articles on the wiki. &mdash; Rudget contributions 19:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, hopefully this has now been satisfactorly rectified.--Hontogaichiban (talk) 20:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. The article proves ISBN's for the books Magson has written, thereby adding at least a basic start of verifiability. Looks like a valid stub to me. —Scott5114↗ 19:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It's amazing how intolerant Wikipedia has become in recent years, it seems stubs are no longer acceptable, I thought the idea of wikipedia was collaborative efforts not one person writing the whole article, which it seems is what has to happen for any article to even be started without being speedily deleted.--Hontogaichiban (talk) 21:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - No reliable sources to satisfy Notability (people) or the notability of the subject's published works, just a link to their own website ... none of the books meet Notability (books) criteria. &mdash; 19:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually the article seems to me to comply perfectly well with these two criteria.--Hontogaichiban (talk) 20:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete - This appears to be a re-creation of an article I nominated for speedy deletion yesterday and which I assume was deleted ! thisisace (talk) 20:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That is not a reason to delete the article.--Hontogaichiban (talk) 20:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Please note that Hontogaichiban above is the author of both articles ! thisisace (talk) 20:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * This is true, it is not a secret, what is your point?--Hontogaichiban (talk) 20:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Although an article that is speedied as failing A7 may be once more speedied under A7 if recreated identically or substantially (if, that it, the failure to assert notability is not addressed), speedy deletion is not undertaken consistent with a deletion discussion and so a recreated speedy is not a G4 candidate. In any case, where an XfD is ongoing and has not readily produced a clear consensus for deletion, it is, on the whole, a rather bad idea to speedy the underlying page.  Joe 21:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - Seems notable in the UK. He even has a few audio books available on UK Amazon. Hontogaichiban maybe consider the template in the future. Gtstricky (talk) 23:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice.--Hontogaichiban (talk) 10:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Temporary Keep - The article is only 2 days old. It is too early to judge whether it meets A7. Mdmkolbe 17:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - And just how long should we wait for the article to indicate why its subject is important or significant as specified by WP:CSD? &mdash;141.156.234.101 18:32, 1 December 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.