Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Harman


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. after considerable work done to improve this article. Liz Read! Talk! 03:25, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Andrew Harman

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Non-notable author. Article relies on a single unreliable source. UtherSRG (talk) 19:10, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and United Kingdom. UtherSRG (talk) 19:10, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. I found a ton of reviews proving notability and his works were published by a major UK press. For his Firkin series of novels, there are reviews of the various books in Vector (in issues 174, 180, 181, 182, and 186), Interzone (in issues 75 and 89, both from the early 1990s) Locus (in issue 400 from May 1994) and Science Fiction Chronicle (in issue 187 December 1995-January 1996). In addition, his other novels are also reviewed in these places. For example, The Scrying Game was reviewed in Locus issue 422 from March 1996, in Science Fiction Chronicle issue 189 from May/June 1996 and in Vector issue 188. He's also mentioned in Encyclopedia of Fantasy and Horror Fiction by Don D'Ammassa and Fantasy of the 20th century: An Illustrated History by Randy Broecker along with having a small entry in Fantasy: The Definitive Illustrated Guide and a detailed two-page entry in the St. James Guide to Fantasy Writers. Granted, some of these reviews are very cruel and cutting -- the one in Interzone 75 states "There is hardly a word in The Sorcerer's Appendix by Andrew Harman which fails to grate. Harman's recipe for humour is to invent a large number of very stupid characters, and show them behaving in very stupid ways, time after time. He then explains to the reader what has transpired, repeating much of it." But the reviews and other citations still exist and provide enough reliable and significant secondary sources to prove notability for creative professionals --SouthernNights (talk) 13:37, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: I have updated the article with some of the citations mentioned above plus others I found, such as an entry for him in the Waterstone's Guide to Science Fiction, Fantasy & Horror.--SouthernNights (talk) 19:06, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star   Mississippi  02:45, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per SouthernNights. The person who loves reading (talk) 02:12, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * 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.