Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Matthews (author)


 * 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 speedy keep per WP:SK. The nominator withdrew their nomination, and no !votes to delete (other than the retracted nomination) were posted. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000(talk) 14:25, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

David Matthews (author)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Author who does not seem to meet WP:AUTHOR; I am not sure whether the coverage on his book is significant enough, as I don't have a clear understanding of criterion #3 of said guideline. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 19:14, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Nomination withdrawn. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 03:13, 1 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment. It sort of depends. If the focus is entirely on the book then it's usually better to have an article for the book than the author. But in cases where the book is an autobiography it's understandable to just create an author page instead.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   01:25, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Meets the basic criterion for authors : just from Google News archive, his first book Ace ofSpades was reviewed in the NYTimes, Chicago Tribune, Baltimore Sun, & other papers; his second, Kicking ass and saving souls : a true story of a life over the linein the Boston Globe,  and in Kirkus.  Though not a formal criterion, worldcat shows that book to be in 245 Worldcat libraries; Ace of spades in 420.  He is also important as a NYT columnist.
 * Though not directly relevant here, I think that for the author of a single book, the default should generally be the author unless there is some particular reason why the book will always be likely to be the more notable. For a living author who has written a successful book, the author is very likely to write more books, and thus the article on the author will be expandable, while the article on the book will almost never be expandable.  I respect Tokyogirl's opinion, even though it is opposite to mine, but there's no need of us to argue that here, because in this particular case we would come to the same conclusion about where the article would be ifhe had only written the single book.  DGG ( talk ) 02:57, 31 December 2012 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:07, 1 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep He's notable just for Ace of Spades. Kicking Ass and Saving Souls has enough coverage to be mentioned in the author article (The Root is owned by the Washington Post group and Newcity is a well-established Chicago weekly). I don't see any reason to move this or delete. --Colapeninsula (talk) 02:03, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Per all of the above, it seems there is a consensus to keep, and my own nomination was weak, so I gladly withdraw. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 03:13, 1 January 2013 (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.