Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clive Gifford


 * 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) 02:16, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Clive Gifford

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

non notable autobio (Droffig is Gifford backwards), current references only prove that his books exist. Wuh Wuz  Dat  19:58, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, no evidence of meeting WP:AUTHOR. Books exist, but that's not enough. No WP:RS indicating notability. -- Kinu t /c  19:59, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as article fails notability criteria for authors. Writing books is not enough. Armbrust  Talk  Contribs  00:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * And you've failed to discuss the sources added to the article even before you commented. Why are or aren't they enough to meet wp:gng?  160.39.212.104 (talk) 15:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: Well, I'll discuss the sources for the benefit of all. The OUP one is an author biography, which shows existence and could be used as a source for information to avoid WP:BLP, but does not establish notability per WP:GNG, since the publisher's site would be a primary source. I can't seem to access the librarycatalogue.act.gov.au one, but I'm assuming that's what it is, a "library catalogue" with a listing but no coverage/commentary. The newspaper reference is a nice start and is actually about the author, but it's one reference and hardly shows "significant coverage" as suggested by WP:GNG. -- Kinu t /c  15:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The Age article is not an excellent source because it seems based on an interview with Gifford and thus is not third-party. But it does discuss Gifford's book and shows he's been noted.  How you can doubt that a full-length article is not significant coverage escapes me.  Moreover when there's one good source there are usually others.  160.39.212.104 (talk) 14:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete One almost un-noticed book is not notability as an author. By Zipf's law, most things with the world that have been noticed once, will have been noticed only once. I furthermore do not regard an article saying someone is interesting because he;s rather young to have written a book as indicating any actual notability.  DGG ( talk ) 18:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Stephen Hutcheon would probably disagree. 160.39.212.104 (talk) 23:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll admit that I don't know who that is, but perhaps more importantly, I don't see how that's relevant here. Apparently he's the writer of the one article about this subject. -- Kinu t /c  23:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Probably more relevant than a wikipedia editor's perplexing opinion that an Age article taking note of its subject somehow does not suggest "actual notability." 160.39.212.104 (talk) 01:33, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, WP:GNG indicates that there must be significant coverage. One article is not an indicator of notability... it's coverage, but not significant coverage. And trust me, WP:GNG is not one Wikipedia editor's "perplexing" opinion, it's a pretty established consensus. -- Kinu t /c  02:07, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm only saying the Age piece is a start. DGG doesn't even agree with that.  And just as an academic point, gng's element of significance of coverage (ruling out passing mentions and directories) is a separate requirement from the element of multiplicity of sources (ensuring an npov article can be written).  Of course both elements are required, but you seem to have confused them. 160.39.212.104 (talk) 10:42, 3 September 2010 (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.