Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Damon Kaswell


 * 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. —Quarl (talk) 2007-01-03 08:49Z 

Damon Kaswell

 * — (View AfD)

AfD nominated by 70.90.135.186 with reason: "Should Damon have his own page? (No offence Damon, you are so cool! ^ _ ^)". This is a procedural nomination - my opinion is  Neutral . Tevildo 00:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, that depends. Are Writers of the Future winners considered notable? Incidentally, Loreen Heneghan actually is published. I'm assuming you - Tevildo - are the one who added that, and are a Wordo? Are you also the one who keeps uncorrecting the Wordos entry? For the record, I won in Q2, not Q3, and it was the contest for 2007, not 2006 (Blake Hutchins is published in the 2006 anthology). So anyway, my vote is Keep but I'm biased. --GoodDamon 00:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Weak Delete as non-notable author. Going on WP:N, WP:V, and WP:BIO here.  --Dennisthe2 02:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Additional comment - please change my mind. --Dennisthe2 02:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete. Damon has posed the critical question - are Writers of the Future winners considered notable?  According to WP:BIO, a writer is notable if they have "received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work."  Does having a short story accepted in an annual anthology published by a firm with - let's say - connections to an organization that is not without its critics - count as "receiving an award"?  If so, the article should stay.  If not - and I don't personally believe it is - and if Damon has no other claims to notability, it should go. Tevildo 03:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd personally kind of waffle on this, but lean toward "no", only on account that the founding organization of this award is...well, incredibly self-isolated. Based on your points, Tevildo, I'm going to downgrade my vote to a weak delete. I want to keep this.  By the way, Damon, I for one appreciate your understanding in this - and wish you much luck. =^^= --Dennisthe2 05:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm changing my mind again... sort of. I looked at the article, and in that it's only loosely connected with the Scientologists (remember, Hubbard was a sci-fi writer himself), it probably should have some notability to factor in.  I'll leave this as an exercise to others out there; please comment, and really, please change my mind about that delete. --Dennisthe2 05:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, I'm obviously somewhat biased here, so take this with a grain of salt. I would argue for the notability of Writers of the Future winners in general, regardless of the criticism one might level at Scientology (and I agree that there's lots to criticize). The contest has yielded a large number of successful science fiction and fantasy writers, such as Jay Lake, Nina Kiriki Hoffman, and R. Garcia y Robertson (who really ought to have a Wikipedia entry). As for my own notability - aside from winning the contest, that is - I have to admit it would only stem from my association with the Wordos workshop. If those combined merit a full entry, so be it. If not, so be it. --GoodDamon 05:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak delete, I really don't think one minor short-story award is enough to establish notability, especially not when it's just for third place. And especially not when it's really more of a "we're going to include you in our annual anthology" (i.e. a sale) which is called an award in order to promote the anthology.  It's nice that they encourage as-yet-unpublished writers, and yes, they've helped some good ones get started.  But I still think its status as an actual award is a bit iffy.  And given that, and given that the third-place-winning story is still unpublished, and given that there's no actual evidence that Mr. Kaswell will go on to be a successful author in the future, I think notability is not (yet) established.  But I do agree that it's a promising start for Mr. Kaswell, and I wish him continued success in the future.  Xtifr tälk 09:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the vote of confidence. I can't really disagree with the comments made here, and can only say I hope circumstances change sufficiently - and soon - enough to merit reconsideration. --GoodDamon 23:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak delete premature, he's not even a published writer yet. --Duke of Duchess Street 03:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete -- I just don't see any way of expanding this article beyond a stub at this point. Maybe at some point in the future Mr. Kaswell will have achieved enough prominence as a science fiction writer to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia. However, that doesn't appear to be the case at this point in time. Also, Mr. Kaswell is most likely unknown outside the world of writers and avid readers of science fiction writing at this time.Librarylefty 07:30, 2 January 2007 (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.