Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gary Holian


 * 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. ‑Scottywong | communicate _ 02:09, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Gary Holian

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

BLP is sourced to a non-RS reference that simply credits his name as an author on a book BLP wrote. A basic BEFORE (newspapers.com, Google Books, Google News, newspapers.com) fails to find further references. Article fails GNG. Chetsford (talk) 20:10, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 20:18, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Men-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 20:18, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 20:18, 22 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep if more sources can be found, otherwise move to draft so that it can be worked on. BOZ (talk) 20:41, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * In principle, I have no issue with Draftifying articles where there is a possibility of improvement, however, oppose draftifying any BLPs due to our policy "that human dignity and personal privacy be taken into account, especially in articles of ephemeral or marginal interest"; non-notable persons should be protected from having their life indexed on WP, even if in a non-searchable namespace. Chetsford (talk) 21:06, 22 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete non-notable WP:BLP. Can't find anything substantial at all in reliable sources on him. SportingFlyer  T · C  05:46, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep, per BOZ. Holian is an established author, with more credits to his name than several other writers.--Robbstrd (talk) 18:07, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, verbosity is not one of the criteria of WP:NAUTHOR under which authors achieve inherent notability. Chetsford (talk) 18:48, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * However, authoring multiple Notable books is a criterion for NAUTHOR, and the subject of this article has done so. Newimpartial (talk) 01:40, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * No, it's not. Chetsford (talk) 01:41, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * NAUTHOR 4(c) "The person's work has...received significant critical attention". NBOOK 1. "The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include ... reviews." So an author of at least two notable books meets NAUTHOR by definition. I mean, I suppose there may he notable books that haven't received two or more reviews, based on some of the other criteria, but I doubt that many exist and any way, the subject of this article wrote books that satisfy the review criterion and therefore meets AUTHOR 4(c).Newimpartial (talk) 01:47, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * No, WP:NAUTHOR 4(c) says "The person's work (or works) has ... won significant critical attention". "Significant critical attention" must be demonstrated, not simply declared. If several reviews of Holian's books in the New York Review of Books or Le Nouveau Magazine Littéraire or similar publications can be demonstrated, I'll be more than happy to withdraw the nomination. Chetsford (talk) 02:05, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * And WP:NAUTHOR isn't even that strict - it just needs to be non-self-published/peer-edited reviews. It's multiple reviews which pass WP:NAUTHOR, not books written. SportingFlyer  T · C  02:06, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * And we have Notable/multiply reviewed books here, a.k.a. "significant critical attention". As usual, Chetsford is trying to conjure up a deletionist bar contra policy, but I have trouble understsnding your !vote, SportingFlyer, given what you say here about AUTHOR. Newimpartial (talk) 11:59, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Again, if one believes there are significant reviews in RS, one needs to provide evidence of those reviews. Per WP:NEXIST, "merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive". Chetsford (talk) 12:21, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I've done a fairly extensive BEFORE search and didn't find anything that would get him over the WP:AUTHOR line. All the coverage I found was from blogs or non-reliable sources, so even though I don't expect the New Yorker to have reviewed him, there's also not enough reliable secondary sources that would get him over the notability line, especially given he's a possible BLP. SportingFlyer  T · C  19:42, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:48, 24 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. I don't see the slightest sign he qualifies under WP:NAUTHOR specifically or WP:GNG generally, nor has anyone seen fit to provide evidence otherwise. "Hope" is not a substitute for ACTUAL reliable sources. --Calton &#124; Talk 14:49, 26 July 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.