Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gene Odom


 * 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 to delete, default to keep.  Jauerbackdude?/dude. 18:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Gene Odom

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

Non-notable subject fails WP:BIO. Article appears to be for advertising for a book and serves no other purpose. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 23:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nomination. RayAYang (talk) 01:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak keep it appears that the subject may pass WP:BIO: The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. The review of his book in part by Rolling Stone certainly counts under this, but there seems to be precious little interesting biographical material about the guy. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep (pending). I would prefer to give BW2417 more time to understand that more quality content is needed so that we can make a better-informed decision. The user is new and understandably having some learning curve issues. I believe he has misunderstood my suggestion to use Odom's book as a source...ending up in inappropriately placed links in reference sections. I take responsibility for misguiding him. However, he has just gotten a Welcome a few days ago and it may take a little bit for him to read & digest it. He (or another contributor) will need to be forthcoming with relevant quality content for the article..soon. He needs to begin communicating as well. I suggest giving him a week or two. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—►  ((⊕)) 04:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notability as author is demonstrated by the references. The article discusses the book, but is not an advertisement for it. --Eastmain (talk) 14:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.   —Eastmain (talk) 14:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment : It is plausible that Gene Odom 's writing was influential in Lynyrd Skynyrd's Hall of Fame induction. A quote from the Rolling Stone 2002 article..
 * "Odom's remembrance is both loving and pointed, as he makes his case for the band as the most glaring of omissions from the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, a slight he suspects was prompted by their association with the confederate flag. It's an image that Odom says was pushed on the band by its label as a marketing ploy, but one that was also a regional point of pride. 'I think that's what held the boys out of the Rock Hall,' Odom says."1


 * Skynyrd's 2005-2006 invitation & inductment into the Hall of Fame might not be a pure coincidence. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—►  ((⊕)</b>) 15:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Go to Google Books, go to Google News & Archive, go to Google, try different keywords, and when sources are not online go to your local fucking library and read them. Make it work, because authors don't need people kicking them around after all the hard hours they have spent getting their words just right. Sincerely, Manhattan Samurai (talk) 20:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per nomination. Just because someone wrote a book, it doesn't mean they automatically warrant a Wikipedia article. LuciferMorgan (talk) 21:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Attempt at notability through association. Libs (talk) 03:02, 22 July 2008 (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.