Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Scott (author)


 * 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   WP:SNOW Keep. NAC. Schuy m 1 ( talk ) 23:23, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Bill Scott (author)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

fails WP:CREATIVE. whilst the major book he compiled can be found in Google search. Google news search reveals nothing. Michellecrisp (talk) 00:02, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  -- Mattinbgn\talk 00:19, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  00:34, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak delete I think he's somewhat notable and would have expected some solid sourcing or at least something to build an expandable stub upon. This was about all I found, though, and it's not nearly enough. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  05:30, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Strongest possible keep A notable chronicler of Australian cultural history. Lots of sources on this author. Here's one . ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:55, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete: There does not see to be enough information, references or notability to justify this entry. It would not appear in a regular encyclopaedia. As noted, the individual does have a book credit but it fails WP:CREATIVE. This would have been different if the work or combination of works had provided a special place in a historical context. Royalhistorian (talk) 01:16, 19 December 2008 (UTC
 * you'll need to show more than one source if there are "lots". Michellecrisp (talk) 05:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep, per ChildofMidnight. Multiple published works listed. Multiple references cited. Author's works - and multiple archival interviews with the author are held in the collection of the National Library of Australia, and attest to his significance. A 3-second Google search prior to slapping an AfD on this article would have revealed this. Nothing wrong with this article at all. Disruptive nomination. Censure nominator. --Gene_poole (talk) 06:27, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * that in itself doesn't prove notability. needs significant coverage. Michellecrisp (talk) 06:33, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I did a google search but a google news search didn't reveal any significant coverage. Michellecrisp (talk) 06:36, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You must be using a different version of Google from the rest of the world in that case. The 3rd link on the very first results page leads to the National Library of Australia listing for this author - and that links to a further 4 entire pages listing catalogued works and audio interviews with the individual in question extending back as far as the 1950s. Sugesting that "notability" is an issue here is disingenuous at best. --Gene_poole (talk) 06:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I use google news search to find reliable reporting in the media as well. Like this. Michellecrisp (talk) 06:45, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Good for you. In future I suggest using the rest of Google as well, in order to avoid missing notable subjects like this one, and causing other editors to waste time correcting your errors and oversights. --Gene_poole (talk) 06:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

As previously stated, I did do a google search. being listed in the NLA still needed more for significant coverage. If you think I've made an error in judgement, that is not malice as you've accused me of. I suggest you concentrate on the arguments for deletion/keep not continual personal commentary on me. Michellecrisp (talk) 06:52, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I also question http://www.restlessmusic.com.au as a reliable source. Michellecrisp (talk) 06:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Multiple indepth audio interviews count as significant coverage. Obituaries in notable publications indicate notability too. -- Mgm|(talk) 09:33, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - A notable folklorist and poet with multiple publications and sources. As for your search engine test, WP:Search engine test states: "Raw hit count is a very crude measure of importance. Some unimportant subjects have many "hits", some notable ones have few or none... Hit count numbers alone can only rarely "prove" anything about notability" and " Google News used to be less susceptible to manipulation by self-promoters, but with the advent of pseudo-news sites designed to collect ad revenues or to promote specific agendas, this test is often no more reliable than the others" Scapler (talk) 12:20, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep in terms of notability it fares no worse than a multitude of similar stub based biographies on Wiki, if you delete this, you will really have to consider deleting them all. Semitransgenic (talk) 13:01, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Looks sourced enough to me to establish notability. 23skidoo (talk) 14:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * keep The article needed work, but I think that notability is well-provenMrathel (talk) 16:36, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Being awarded the Medal of the Order of Australia he passes WP:BIO, but does need some better sources, I have cleaned up the ones that are there with "cite web templates"--kelapstick (talk) 20:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per sources, seems to have been Heymann'd. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 21:31, 19 December 2008 (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.