Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/D. A. Blyler


 * 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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 00:24, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

D. A. Blyler

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable individual who's written a non-notable novel. This is essentially an unreferenced CV that has existed on WP for 10 years.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 19:09, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Neutral - the subject of this article could be a borderline keep in my estimation, but the article would need to be better developed to do so (and it can be developed). If we just use WP:GNG, I think it's a keep. If we consider WP:AUTHOR, we do have articles on less-notable writers, and between essays, stories, poems, the subject's body of work is substantial enough to consider meeting some of the WP:AUTHOR criteria. There are sources out there, as quick google searches show. For the article to merit inclusion, it would need to incorporate those sources. If the article were developed before the close of this AfD, I'd say borderline keep, if it's not developed or shown to be developable, it's a borderline delete IMHO.--ColonelHenry (talk) 13:54, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 00:49, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete There's a small number of interviews and reviews in publications of uncertain reliability/significance but in my opinion that's not enough to meet WP:GNG and none of his works could be considered "a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." (WP:AUTHOR) Nothing in Kirkus or other well-known publications, although for work published in the 1990s there may be offline coverage. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:04, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Looking on Questia and Highbeam, I did not find anything of note, and only found a brief review in "Books Received" Poetry, Vol. 166, No. 5 (Aug., 1995), pp. 306-307.--ColonelHenry (talk) 14:50, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:24, 16 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete as lacking in depth independent coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:05, 21 April 2014 (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.