Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Casey Michel


 * 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 delete. Consensus to delete. It has been pointed out that the subject may satisfy WP:AUTHOR under criteria 3, as having created a reviewed, "well-known" work. Nothing has been presented to argue that it is "well-known", and satisfying a criteria under WP:AUTHOR does not guarantee inclusion. TigerShark (talk) 21:54, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Casey Michel

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

Appears to fail WP:AUTHOR in that while he has written a well-reviewed book, the author does not appear to meet WP:GNG nor WP:BIO, nor is the book "a significant monument" in the field, nor is it the subject of separate notable works. Sources on the page include sites affiliated with the subject and a number of everyday book reviews, none of which establish notability for him. Possibly just WP:TOOSOON if the author is a rising star, but a few positive reviews of a book don't add up to notability. Google News search reveals many appearances by the author that aren't themselves WP:RS, additional work written by the author that can't itself establish notability, and additional reviews that don't cross the threshold for WP:AUTHOR. I'll note that the page was created by an AFC, so I might be wrong on this one and I might just be missing something obvious. 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 05:31, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Authors. 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 05:31, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. Agree with nom that this is probably just WP:TOOSOON. He only announced the sale of his second book on March 11. If that gets NYRB and TLS reviews again, there will be an argument to be made for a WP:NAUTHOR pass, but not yet. -- asilvering (talk) 05:37, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello @Asilvering! I just !voted below, and wondered your thoughts on deleting/moving this article and changing the title. Basically a "the author isn't notable but the book is" move. Any thoughts on that? Cheers! --Kbabej (talk) 20:47, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * We could do that, but I'm not sure there's any reason to. Then we just end up with a really promotional book stub. I don't think there's any policy argument against doing that, but I don't think there's an "is this good for the encyclopedia" argument in favour, either. fwiw, the original editor has declared a COI on the article. -- asilvering (talk) 20:59, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Whoops sorry, here's a ping in case you're not watching this page, @Kbabej. -- asilvering (talk) 20:59, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Asilvering thanks for the reply! That's true, the content about the book is pretty promotional/fawning without really imparting anything that is contained in the book. Probably best to just delete overall at this point. PS - Watching this page now for any other replies. --Kbabej (talk) 21:11, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment : Afc reviewer here. I thought this would be a borderline notability case and had accepted it so that the wider community can decide if and when the afd happens. – robertsky (talk) 05:41, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:18, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. The released book obviously meets notability criteria per WP:BKCRIT, but there really isn't anything on the author at this point. In the beginning of the 'Career' section it states CNN calls him an "oligarch expert", and then there's a quote from the Los Angeles Review of Books, but when looking into those sources, the first one is a namechecked quote (no sigcov), and the latter is a book review. The 'Personal life' section is unreferenced, except for his own website. I do think this author will become notable, but at this time there's only coverage in relation to the book. Can we just move the page to American Kleptocracy and drop the personal life section and first paragraph under 'Writing career'? There's absolutely enough info here for the book to have an article, and there are additional reviews online (Kirkus, etc). If so, I would update my !vote to Delete/move. Thoughts appreciated! --Kbabej (talk) 20:45, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * After the discussing with @Asilvering above, I think it would be best at this point for a straight delete, not moving the page. The reviews do seem overly promotional without imparting much information about what the book is about. If someone wants to move/create a book page that's more balanced, that's fine, but at this point this article isn't cutting it as a BLP. --Kbabej (talk) 21:14, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. The reasoning above used for why this article should be deleted doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for creative professionals. In those guidelines the use of the word "or" means an author doesn't have to meet multiple criteria to prove notability. Instead, an author only needs to meet one of those criteria. In this case, his book American Kleptocracy qualifies him because it is a "well-known work" that has "been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." His book has been reviewed in The Los Angeles Review of Books, The Atlantic, Kirkus, NY Review of Books, The Economist, Publishers Weekly, and many other places. Publishers Weekly also did an interview with him on the work. The totality of the coverage of his book shows he meets notability guidelines for creating a single well-known work. --SouthernNights (talk) 15:27, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom.Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 02:09, 1 July 2022 (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.