Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bodie and Brock Thoene


 * 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. Nomination withdrawn. As for whether to split the article, that can be worked out on its talk page without going through the AfD process. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Bodie and Brock Thoene

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

This was a prod with the nominator's reason of "Very orphaned. That's all there is to it," (emphasis in original.) I felt that the matter needed a full AfD discussion. I did not feel that simply being orphaned was reason enough for deletion, but there are other possible reasons, such as lack of references and questionable notability. References might be able to be provided, but the notability question is a more difficult one. The only claim to notability that this writing team has that would possibly meet WP:N standards is that they co-wrote books that won the Evangelical Christian Publishers Association Gold Medallion Book Award on at least three occasions as confirmed by checking the ECPA website, , , and being nominated or winning individually on several other occasions. Thus, the question seems to turn upon the single matter of whether or not the Gold Medallion is a "major literary award." If it is, then the books are notable and the author team would also be notable and the page should be expanded and referenced. If the award is not major, then the books and their authors are not notable and the unsourced page should be deleted. At present I am remaining neutral on the deletion. OlenWhitaker  • talk to me or don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 20:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC) 20:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. After further consideration I have decided that the Gold Medallion Book Award is major enough for these purposes.  My decision was also swayed by the fact that I once worked at a bookstore for several years and these authors were requested by name from time to time.  I realize that is not a criteria for inclusion, but it does help to fill in the grey area between obviously notable and obviously not.  The page still needs work, but I think it needs expansion rather than deletion.  OlenWhitaker   • talk to me or don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 23:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC) 23:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.   —Pixelface (talk) 02:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep these authors look notable enough, but perhaps should appear as two seperate articles. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:05, 19 March 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.