Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gary W. Moore


 * 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   no consensus. After two relists, there is no consensus here that deletion is the best way forward. Closing without prejudice against renomination, merging, moving etc. Further discussion should take place on the article talkpage. Skomorokh 12:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Gary W. Moore

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I was not able to find any independent sources discussing this writer's work in any detail. The chief claim to notability seems to be an award from the Military Writer's Society of America, but I wasn't able to verify that as a notable organization itself, or the award as a significant one. Prod removed without the addition of independent sources. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Go to http://www.militarywriters.com/reviews/review-Playing%20with%20the%20Enemy.htm, it is about the books review by the Military Writer's Society of America. This backs up it's award. Crowz RSA (talk) 20:30, 15 August 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, but that's the organization's own web site- what we need is the newspapers, magazines, and literary journals that wrote about this book and the award it won. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:39, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no newspapers, magazines, or literary journals that i could scource this with. Should I take the whole thing about him winning this award out? would that help at all? Crowz RSA (talk) 20:42, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If no independent sources have ever written about him, then he doesn't meet the guidelines for inclusion at this time, and there isn't anything you could add or remove from the article that would change that.   -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:53, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep - but barely. The Washington Post had an article about him and his book in 2008, "War Games", and it appears that Gerald R. Molen is in the process of making "Playing with the Enemy" into a movie this year123. I think that there are enough independent sources like these out there to at least establish some notability.    A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 23:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  --    A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 23:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment as
 * Military Writer's Society of America (MWSA) has a WP article implying that the book award would be notable. However, At a first glance, the MWSA does not seem to be notable (another project in itself) meaning the award itself would not qualify as notable. This is a tossup. I tend to default an article as about a WP:N subject until proven otherwise meaning the award is notable and it's a keep per WP:PEOPLE.
 * The Washington Post review is of the book and not the author meaning there may be cause to move the article to Playing with the Enemy (novel). I don't have time at the moment to explore this option in depth. Part of what I'm thinking about is how much WP:N weight to give to reviews and other coverage while a product is being actively promoted.
 * The book was optioned for a movie in 2006. This indicates there was work put into filming in 2008 or earlier but also that the production company may be having financial problems. IMDB calls it a 2009 film with a release date of 2010. The WP:CRYSTAL is cloudy enough that I'll ignore this as evidence of notability. If the movie comes out the book gets an immediate WP:N boost but I'm less sure of the author.
 * The author has a nice media page on his web site meaning it's likely most of the significant coverage is there. A consistent pattern in the snippets shown is that it's either the book getting covered or it's the author getting covered as a result of publicity tour appearances. There was coverage at the time the movie optioning was announced but WP:ONEEVENT comes to mind particularly as there does not seem to be continued coverage of the project other than because of the publicity tour for the book.
 * Not a WP:N notability metric at all but my local library system has 12 copies with 11 of them checked out in the past year though none are checked out at the moment. Thus there's sustained reader interest in the book meaning it may be worthwhile to hunt hard for the WP:N evidence for the book with a move in mind.
 * While there has been coverage as a result of the book publicity tour and the movie being optioned there is no evidence that this resulted in significant coverage of the the subject (Gary W. Moore). He does not meet point 2 of WP:ANYBIO nor any of the four points in WP:AUTHOR


 * The sticky point, and resulting subjective call, is the award win. Is it notable enough to swing this into a "keep" per WP:ANYBIO? I think not, and particularly as there are no other significant WP:N nor WP:PEOPLE points I'd lean towards delete ran out of time to take another look at the available evidence. --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 20:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm not entirely convinced he fails point three of WP:AUTHOR: "The person has created ... a significant or well-known work ... that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." It seems that the book has been subject of "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews", and it's possible that it will be made into a "feature-length film". That said, I agree that this case is exceptionally border-line.  It might be better just to have Gary W. Moore redirect to Playing With the Enemy (if the book itself is determined notable).    A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 21:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:CRYSTAL seems pretty clear. We can't use the possible movie as a WP:N point as it's not "certain to take place." When looking at point 3 of WP:AUTHOR how can I know if something is a significant or well-known work? Assuming we can demonstrate it's significant or well-known the book does seem to satisfy "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews"
 * September 29, 2006 Daily Herald (Arlington Heights, IL)
 * July 13, 2008 - Unknown size review in Book World by Adam Mazmanian (Weekly periodical published by the Washingon Post). This is likely the same as the Washington Post review on the same date.
 * Nine 16.2 (Spring 2008): p.137(3). (838 words) - This was published by the University of Nebraska Press. (Gale Document Number:A176981330)
 * Library Journal 133.13 (August 1, 2008): p.92(1). (222 words) Brief review by Paul Kaplan, Lake Villa Dist. Lib., IL. (Gale Document Number:A184324011)


 * Mentions:
 * Sept 15, 2006 - 193 word review in Booklist, a Semimonthly Magazine/Journal published by the American Library Association. My local library has the full text and it's a summary rather than review.
 * March 19, 2008 The Herald News - Joliet (IL) - It's hard to tell if this is an independent review or an author visit.
 * Apr 11, 2008 M&C News - Report that claims the book was "featured" in USA Today.
 * December 23, 2006 The Southern - Not an independent review but documents efforts by book promoters to get on Oprah. This is confirmed on the book's web site and is something we can add to the book article.
 * December 10, 2007 Publishers Weekly 254.49: p.11(1). (50 words) - Report that Penguin acquires paperback reprint rights and is something we can add to the book article.
 * There may be more. The book has been promoted quite a bit via author appearances meaning there were many reports related to this. It also means there's a bit of noise to wade through looking for those articles and reviews that appear to be in RS periodicals and seemingly independent of the promotion efforts. Something I saw very little of was coverage of the author meaning a move should do as the book either satisfies WP:N or is close. --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 03:09, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW ( Talk ) 15:12, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * 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.