Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben Greenman


 * 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. General consensus is for the article to be retained and for Ben Greenman bibliography to be merged into the subject's article. North America1000 08:52, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Ben Greenman

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Per WP:PROMOTION. Only three refs included in the main article, and all they tell us is that the subject received favorable reviews of his books. Ilovetopaint (talk) 16:58, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Reviews in independent reliable sources are the usual way to determine notability of an author. Why should it be different in this case? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:59, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It's different here because the article gives many other details besides "so-and-so praised the book". There's also WP:NPOV in cherrypicking only positive reviews. Surely not all of his books received unanimous acclaim?--Ilovetopaint (talk) 06:29, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe they did receive unanimous or near-unanimous acclaim in reliable sources. If not then the way to deal with the matter is to cite some other sources. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:21, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:14, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:14, 10 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment - Shouldn't his bibliography be nominated as well if the person himself is up for debate?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:28, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure of the propriety of adding another article to the discussion after the main article has been nominated, but if that is OK I don't see any reason for a separate bibliography article so, if the proper process is followed, would say that it should be merged. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:49, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep the Greenman article but merge his bibliography. There is enough coverage for the author; it just needs to be rewritten. He is not however notable enough to have a standalone bibliography.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:41, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge the bibliography. There is little reason to separate this content for the reader. The rest of the article is brief enough for it all to be unified. Weak keep on the bio. He seems to have a presence that meets WP:GNG (sort of).--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:45, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep the bibliography. Author has more than ten published works - see Author Bibliographies guidelines. Sunwin1960 (talk) 23:45, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr  \ talk / 03:59, 22 December 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.