Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Horan


 * 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. T. Canens (talk) 05:33, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Daniel Horan

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not appear to pass WP:GNG as few sources in this article are independent and those that are don't appear to be particularly significant. Article was created by an SPA account so it could be a case of WP:COI or WP:AUTOBIO. GPL93 (talk) 18:58, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:48, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:48, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:49, 11 May 2019 (UTC)


 * delete I made a good faith effort to source this plausible-looking page, despite the fact that, as Nom says, it appears to be either WP:AUTOBIO or the work of an admirer of Horan, a Catholic priest who is active on the Retreat (spiritual) circuit and is a columnist in a major Catholic newspaper.  Fails WP:AUTHOR, I can find him quoted in news articles as "author of" one or another book, but could not find reviews or other SIGCOV of his books.  Nor could I find profiles or other in depth coverage of Horan.  It  may very well be WP:TOOSOON; he's early career for a theologian, priest, scholar.  There should be no prejudice against an article on him if in future his work draws more attention, as often happens with writers and academics. E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:40, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I was originally torn over whether or not to AfD because, as you point out, it is a plausible-looking page. I agree that the subject may someday meet notability standards. The fact that his professional headshot was uploaded as an own work by someone who states that they are a Franciscan Friar makes me lean towards this being an autobiography. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:30, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:41, 12 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment The article does include some interviews and coverage of the person and there are other mentions, and he seems to have written a lot , also found some reviews of his books .  His notability is marginal I think, although most of the reviews of his book are not particularly noteworthy, one or two might possibly count towards passing WP:NAUTHOR. Hzh (talk) 13:20, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for finding that review of the Duns Scotus book in The Anglican Review'. One of my hesitations has been that he published in the same Catholic magaznes that write about his activities and books.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:23, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep as the sources above found by HzH are enough for a close pass of WP:GNG and worldcat shows that he has 795 library holdings which is an indicator that there should be more reviews of his works offline if not online Atlantic306 (talk) 17:19, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:43, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per book reviews, articles found by User:Hzh.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:11, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Found a few more book reviews in addition to the ones listed above,, and I expect there might be more as I haven't checked all the books. He should therefore qualify under WP:NAUTHOR. Hzh (talk) 15:03, 25 May 2019 (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.