Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Garrett


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 08:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Chris Garrett

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

No clear notability established, no inline citations, no articles on books authored. If the subject passes the notability criterion, it's not clear what the basis is. Pete (talk) 09:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Google news gives me nothing. I'm really unsure what claim to notability I'm supposed to be even searching for here. It's a common name, but there are no claims to notability here (other than book authorship, and the books don't appear to have articles or be particularly notable). Shadowjams (talk) 09:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:BIO, no significant coverage in reliable sources. ukexpat (talk) 20:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:BIO no RS of him or his books (and remember the fact that he's written books is not enough, it's that people have written about *him* or the books). --Cameron Scott (talk) 23:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Cannot be rescued since no good sources exist - Vartanza (talk) 05:38, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - Per above. And the rescue template has become a joke. Tagged on anything, regardless of whether or not it's worthy of improvement or inclusion. لenna  vecia  19:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * ''Discussion regarding rescue template moved to talk page. لenna  vecia  04:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment re: Rescue tag. Drawn some has added the Rescue tag seemingly indiscriminately to about 100 60 articles in the past two days. I am reverting most of them. Fences and windows (talk) 03:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Wasn't even considering a major contributor of two of the four books that were listed as written by him, only secondary co-author on the remaining two, no reliable independent sources demonstrating notability on his own. DreamGuy (talk) 19:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Note to closing administrator: If the consensus is to "delete," rather than complete deletion, this article should be turned into a redirect to Chris Garrett (Oregon politician) (or that article should be moved here). -Pete (talk) 19:42, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I follow... "complete deletion" is a different vote from "Delete"? I would agree that if this is deleted the existing article should be more readily accessible, either through a redirect or page move. DreamGuy (talk) 19:49, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm never really sure how detailed to make comments here. Maybe my point is just obvious, and I shouldn't have bothered. Sorry! -Pete (talk)
 * Pete, you're right. Good note. لenna  vecia  22:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Unless appropriate references are forthcoming, the article ought to be deleted. The use of the rescue tag is entirely appropriate, given the high number of hits the title of the article gets on Google News etc.  Skomorokh   22:56, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Yes, it is appropriate, in fact, this is exactly the situation for which it was created. Drawn Some (talk) 18:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Unreferenced bio. Hipocrite (talk) 19:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: I have a blog, do I get an article too? Niteshift36 (talk) 22:44, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Despite the many "delete" votes, Mr. Garrett clearly is notable per WP:BIO as he as works in "many significant libraries". WorldCat shows his programming book held by only 40 something libraries but they are mostly university libraries and his second book is held by over 170 libraries.  Primary sources may be used to verify an article.  Drawn Some (talk) 16:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete no reliable sources that discuss the subject of a BLP beyond en passant? No encyclopedia article.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:22, 2 June 2009 (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.