Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bryan Davis (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 keep‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. It would be appreciated if editors would move new sources from this discussion into the article. Liz Read! Talk! 21:16, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Bryan Davis (author)

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

The person does not pass WP:BIO or WP:NAUTHOR. TipsyElephant (talk) 20:49, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Science fiction and fantasy,  and Christianity. TipsyElephant (talk) 20:49, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Tennessee and Virginia.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:15, 14 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep. While the article needs to be far better sourced, I found plenty of reviews that prove Davis's notability per WP:Author. This includes reviews in Publishers Weekly (Link 1 and 2 plus mentions in PW articles about Christian fantasy, see this search for all the PW articles mentioning Davis), five reviews in Kirkus Reviews (see this search), an entry for Davis in Baker & Taylor Author Biographies, plus even more reviews in Booklist, School Library Journal, Christian Librarian, and Voice of Youth Advocates (with these last items found through the Wikipedia Library). It appears this author is a very big deal in the world of Christian fantasy fiction. --SouthernNights (talk) 00:14, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I think you are correct in this assessment overall. One note that unless a Kirkus review ends up in its magazine or newsletter, which is an editorial decision, Kirkus doesn't generally count toward notability. This is because anyone can pay to have their work reviewed (but not influence the review). &mdash;siro&chi;o 01:43, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm aware of that and don't use the Kirkus Indie reviews when determining notability (Kirkus Indie is the name for their paid reviews). For an example of a Kirkus Indie review, see this review where at the bottom it lists "Review Program: KIRKUS INDIE." However, as per Reliable sources/Perennial sources, all other Kirkus reviews are considered "generally reliable" and absolutely count toward determining notability. Anyway, all of the Kirkus reviews listed above were published in the magazine as stated at the bottom of each review, so they're good to use. SouthernNights (talk) 12:03, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. I trust you that those reviews were published in the magazine. For some reason my view isn't showing anything about whether it's been published in the magazine. &mdash;siro&chi;o 15:32, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * When you click on a specific review, you don't see the magazine publication date at the bottom of the page? For example, the review for Diviner has at the bottom "Kirkus Reviews Issue: Sept. 1, 2011" which is the date the review was published in the magazine. Alternately, in the same location on a review if it says "Kirkus Discoveries" or "Kirkus Indie" then it was a paid review. SouthernNights (talk) 11:33, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep as per the reliable sources reviews listed above by SouthernNights with the qualification regarding Kirkus there are still numerous rs reviews, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:28, 15 October 2023 (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.