Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clark Heinrich


 * 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. MuZemike 20:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Clark Heinrich

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

fails WP:BIO and WP:AUTHOR, hardly any coverage in gnews. Google books confirms he has co-authored much more books than authored. but simply being an author doesn't satisfy WP:AUTHOR. LibStar (talk) 06:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Adequately referenced that demonstrates notability. Gillyweed (talk) 00:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep His principal book "Strange fruit : alchemy, religion and magical foods : a speculative history " has been translated into German, Japanese, and Czech. Multiple translations normally indicate a considerable amount of notability — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 00:18, 23 September 2009
 * Delete He seems to be a significant player in a rather narrow field. A scan pulled up 15 citations by others and that's not even using Google Scholar which lists more. If we use WP:ACADEMIC he's not notable but appears to be so under WP:AUTHOR point 1.  Now it gets sticky in that I'd rather see a 2nd hand reliable-source that says "regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors" rather than committing original research and determining that for ourselves. It's this failure of a reliable source cover the subject (Clark Heinrich), and that he is an important figure, that tilted it into delete for me. I've messaged Clark as he may be aware of coverage that would qualify him as notable. --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 08:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'd have thught a significant player in a narrow field would suggest that he was suitably notable! Gillyweed (talk) 10:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed but so far there's no evidence of significant coverage that WP:GNG hinges on of either the author or his work. Clark Heinrich replied to my message and is aware of this AFD. He hasn't said one way or another if he has received significant coverage. Part of what led me to the narrow field is that he may qualify one or more of WP:AUTHOR points 1 to 4 with respect to entheogenology. That again depends on getting the reliability-sourced evidence. The field may be small enough that it may be tough to be independent of the others. --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 08:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Question Has this page been WP:PRODed or WP:CSDed before? The edit history does not start with an "N" (new page). --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 08:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There are no deleted revisions for the page. Regards, decltype (talk) 09:14, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep per establishment of minimum of fame.--Judo112 (talk) 15:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Very Weak keep These are popular but not academic works; the library holdings are not many--see  WorldCat here, and neither are the G Scholar hits --a few citations from comparable books.   But that Magic mushrooms was translated into German and Czech and Japanese is significant. What is needed here to show notability is reviews. Ihave so far not found any.    DGG ( talk ) 02:35, 27 September 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.