Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andy Remic


 * 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The result was Keep as Withdrawn as aside from 1 outstanding Delete vote which was before the recent improvements, there have been no other objections and thus can be withdrawn (NAC). SwisterTwister  talk  06:36, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Andy Remic

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this BLP, does not appear to meet GNG nor do his accomplishments appear to satisfy AUTHOR. J04n(talk page) 16:00, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 16:00, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 16:00, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 16:00, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 16:00, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:35, 28 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete non-notable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:25, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction has a reasonably substantial article on Remic by its lead editor John Clute, which I would say takes him some way towards notability. I have also found one review in The Guardian. At least in Britain, he is a steadily popular if (in my opinion) rather formulaic writer - so I would expect rather there to be rather more reviews and other criticism in reliable sources than I have found, which might or might not amount to notability. Pinging User:Tokyogirl79, as having rather better search skills for sources than I do, for an opinion. PWilkinson (talk) 12:47, 2 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: It looks like there's enough to justify notability now. The local sources I added mostly just to back one or two things up. The Tor.com source could be questioned, however it looks like it was published in 2014 and as far as I know he didn't publish anything with them prior to 2016, when he put out A Song for No Man’s Land. There were announcements of a release in 2015, but again - the review was written prior to that point and Tor.com does review works from other publishers - they don't exclusively write about Tor releases or authors. Anything after 2015 would be considered primary at this point in time, of course. I'm unsure of the EoSF listing since it's so short, but even without that there should be enough for him to pass right now. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  07:25, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. He's received two reviews through SF Signal, one from The Guardian, two through Publishers Weekly, and a few from other locations, along with a handful of coverage in other places. Admittedly these took some digging to uncover, so I can understand the cause for concern - for some reason the Internet didn't want to give these up easily. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  07:38, 5 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Withdraw: In light of the coverage found I am happily withdrawing my nomination. J04n(talk page) 14:31, 5 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Clearly notable enough; e.g. see, , , , , , , ... --Fixuture (talk) 17:29, 5 July 2016 (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.