Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Ackerman Berry


 * 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 Draftify. Basically, this is a consensus to delete, but going to go with SwisterTwister's suggestion to move it to draft. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Charles Ackerman Berry

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Subject does not meet the WP:GNG. A google search revealed no sources where the author was the primary subject. 4meter4 (talk) 00:31, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete, there was hardly anything found at all to satisfy GNG. GABHello! 20:22, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. /wiae  /tlk  04:19, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. /wiae  /tlk  04:19, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * keep He'd pass NAUTHOR for Gentleman of the Road alone, as this was very well received on publication in the '70s. I remember doing it at school, one of the English teachers championing it as a return to Romanticism against the Modernists (we had Ted Hughes give a reading at our school). He's also quite well known in Bristol (no idea why) which led to Redcliffe publishing several other works.
 * Sourcing is being a problem, as usual for anyone of the recent pre-'net generation and this really isn't my field in order to look further. I wouldn't delete it though, without a literature scholar, familiar with the field, telling me that the author of so many well-received books really does count for nothing.Andy Dingley (talk) 11:11, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Andy, I can't imagine that an author who died as late as 1996 wouldn't at least have an obituary online somewhere if he were indeed notable. As it is, I can't find anything (which to my mind is telling). The sources you added, while useful, are primary sources and to my mind don't sufficiently support the WP:GNG requirements for notability. Best.4meter4 (talk) 15:03, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is puzzling me too. I'd expected something in the Grauniad at least. I'm not especially literary but the name, and one book, jogged my own memory, so I'd expected to see more. The trouble is that the places to look, like the TLS or the LRB, aren't somewhere I have access to. I would need to check in those before saying "not notable", anything less would be remiss. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:38, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete for now and then Move to Draft as this is still questionably better, nothing convincing to keep for now. SwisterTwister   talk  05:31, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 28 March 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.