Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ed Dee


 * 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. Nom withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Kj cheetham (talk) 13:31, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Ed Dee

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article has existed for 15 years with zero sourced. I nominated it for proposed deletion which was removed with not any attempt to provide any sourcing. My searches for sources came up with absolutely nothing that was the type of substantial source that would lead to the passing of GNG. Wikipedia needs to stop maintaining these unsourced articles for over a decade John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:51, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:10, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:10, 6 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep. He has been the subject of at least two entries in other encyclopedias:, . AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:32, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - no evidence of anything that would meet WP:AUTHOR. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 15:46, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I think appearing in three reference works on American literature (I found another one after I posted and added it to the article) is very strong evidence of WP:AUTHOR #1—regarded as an important figure. Mind explaining why you disagree? AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:53, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - Reviewed in Kirkus, NY Times, Publishers Weekly, among others. Caro7200 (talk) 15:55, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * @AleatoryPonderings, while he is mentioned in these encyclopedias, neither of them is listed at Reliable sources/Perennial sources. @Caro7200, I assume you're using Encyclopedia.com as the source for your argument, but without being able to read the entire reviews rather than just cherrypicked snippets, it's impossible to evaluate whether they are full reviews or (for example) two-line mentions in roundups of all the month's new releases. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 16:19, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * No, just a regular Google search. Caro7200 (talk) 16:22, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, I find your argument unpersuasive. There are hundreds, probably thousands, of encyclopedias published by reputable publishers like Gale and Palgrave (the publishers of the works I cited), and not all of them will be listed as perennial sources—by reason of space constraints alone. The same goes, of course, for books and journals published by reputable publishers. Rejecting sources simply because they are not listed as perennial sources seems unduly restrictive. For instance, neither the Oxford English Dictionary nor the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography—reference works of impeccable reputation—are listed there either. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:33, 6 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep: I think that the entry in The Encyclopedia of Murder and Mystery is relevant; individual books don't need to be listed in "perennial sources" to be considered reliable. Ditto The American Police Novel: A History, which appears from the snippets to discuss Dee in multiple places throughout the book. The Kirkus and Publishers Weekly reviews are also helpful. — Toughpigs (talk) 21:03, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep and stand ready to topic ban the nominator from deletion processes per WP;COMPETENCE. The nominator's statement that "This article has existed for 15 years with zero sourced" is plainly false. Since its creation, the article has been sourced in part to The New York Times "NOTABLE BOOKS OF THE YEAR: 1994", an annual list/article published in the Times Book Review in its first December issue each year (very occasionally on November 30 or December 8). The inclusion of a book on this annotated list also indicates that the book was given a full review in an earlier issue. When the article was created, editors who fetishize forms of citation were not indulged as they are today, and identifying one source and alluding to another was sufficient. When the nominator goes on to say "My searches for sources came up with absolutely nothing" for substantive sources, it's a confession of utter incompetence. The article asserts that this author has been covered in the New York Times and, unsurprisingly, just clicking on the NYT search link immediately turns up multiple reviews of this author's books, an announcement of his selection as a panelist in a New York Historical Society presentation on "Cops and Writers: Cops and Citizens Who Write About Cops", a solid indication of his stature/reputation in his field, and a piece on the effects of the WTC attack on New York crime fiction, where Dee is the first writer quoted. A GBooks search immediately turns up The Encyclopedia of Murder and Mystery, which has a full entry on Dee. The American Police Novel: A History has a mutipage discussion of Dee's work as well as mentions in a more general context. And there's his PW author's page, compiling their reviews of, I think, all his books,, as well as the reviews found by other commenters here. Let's be blunt: an honest, competent editor could not have said what this nomination says. And if this nominator isn't ready and willing to withdraw this waste of the communuity's time, it's going to be time to revoke their already-limited editing privileges in this area entirely. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006.  Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 23:47, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per recently-added sources. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 07:13, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Withdraw Since there is clearly now the sourcing needed to keep the article. When I nominated the article there was no listed reference. Unsourced claims of past coverage do not count as references.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:16, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * You are, as is often the case, talking complete rubbish. The article referred to a specific, identified article in the New York Times. That's a source. There's nothing that requires a source to be in the form of a footnote. If you want to play games like that, you can go start Jeopardy-pedia and stop wasting the community's time here. And you still refuse to explain why didn't perform the simple, obvious task of checking the NYT for coverage, which any competent, good faith editor should have done. Haven't you embarrassed this project enough? The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006.  Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 17:57, 7 September 2020 (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.