Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dennis E. Taylor


 * 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. Clear consensus that notability is lacking. bd2412 T 04:32, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Dennis E. Taylor

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:BLP of a writer, which offers no evidence of a WP:NAUTHOR pass and no reliable sourcing to get him over WP:GNG. The notability claim here boils down to "he exists", which is not enough in and of itself to get a writer into Wikipedia -- and two of the three sources here are a Q&A interview on a podcast, and a user-generated book review on an unreliable "anybody can write about anything they want to" content-generation community platform. And while the third source, a review in Locus, does count for something toward demonstrating notability, it doesn't carry a GNG pass all by itself as the article's only non-worthless source. I'm also bundling his two books, as neither of them is properly sourced as passing WP:NBOOK either -- both are written as mere plot summaries rather than offering any real-world context for notability, and one relies solely on primary sources like the author's own self-published website and the book's sales page on Amazon, while the other adds only the same sources that aren't adequate in the BLP. Bearcat (talk) 16:38, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  M assiveYR   ♠  19:32, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  M assiveYR   ♠  19:32, 7 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete all, agree with nominator, neither Taylor nor his books are notable enough for wp articles. Taylor does not meet WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG, a gsearch brings up nothing useable (just the usual amazon, goodreads, author's own site etc.), if one of his books was notable i might suggest a redirect, but apart from the one Locus review here of We Are Legion theres nothing else for WP:NBOOK, the other references at that article is either authors own, publisher, retailer ie. amazon and audible, "anyone can contribute" sites, ditto for For We Are Many (that said, did find this review of We Are Bob by GeekSpeakMagazine, if deemed ok, then that book may just squeak over the line but would be happier with more). Coolabahapple (talk) 05:05, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment, this cat will also need to be removed. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:08, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:13, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:50, 8 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Leaning Keep I'm seeing coverage like, , , which seems to be reasonable, if on the light side. I think a bit more exploration is appropriate. Jclemens (talk) 03:34, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Note that three articles are nominated for deletion herein.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:50, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete not nearly enough sources to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:56, 16 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete - Per Nomination. red dogsix (talk) 23:00, 16 October 2017 (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.