Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J. Brent Bill


 * 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 keep. The article was extensively reworked after the last relist. Unfortunately, there wasn't any real evaluation of the new version. I'll go with keep rather than NC, but I'll also add the proviso that if anybody still thinks this isn't good, feel free to bring it back for another nomination. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:02, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

J. Brent Bill

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No references in RS I can find, fails WP:AUTHOR. Article has also been extensively edited by an editor whose username certainly implies a COI. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 13:45, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 13:45, 26 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. Doesn’t even make a claim of notability. Mccapra (talk) 20:37, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - borderline A7, but the number of books is probably a claim to notability. However, as they don't have appeared to garnered any critical attention, fails WP:AUTHOR. Lack of any coverage means WP:GNG is also failed of course. Hugsyrup 16:08, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 13:29, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 13:29, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 13:29, 28 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Weak keep as Worldcat shows 2600 library holdings which indicates that there should be coverage such as reviews offline if not online imv Atlantic306 (talk) 16:20, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * This is a classic argument to avoid: WP:MUSTBESOURCES. Sources must be verifiable, and if we're only assuming that they exist, they're not verifiable. Hugsyrup 08:41, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: The discussion is leaning to keep but I'd like to see some proper sourcing in the article before I close as such.
 * But, as usual, reviews have been found, so it is a reliable indicator Atlantic306 (talk) 21:15, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak keep -- The Quakers are a particular religious group. Reviews of books which they may consider significant may not reach the kind of media being searched.  Peterkingiron (talk) 18:16, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. Four of his books have been reviewed by Publishers Weekly.     Haukur (talk) 15:54, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * And here are reviews in Friends Journal.  And a Quaker best-seller list:  This is only after a cursory search. Haukur (talk) 16:20, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 19:32, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You're the boss. I rewrote the article using the sources above and several more. Haukur (talk) 22:26, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Question does anyone know of any other articles about authors that look like this one? It looks like a publisher’s promo leaf or the back cover of a potboiler. Is notability usually supported by review in these publications? Mccapra (talk) 08:34, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * A great question. The book reviews make the case for "sustained critical attention" as per WP:AUTHOR. But I agree that this list of books with summarized reviews isn't a great style for an engaging article. The problem with authors that are notable but not super notable is that we often lack the kind of sources that we would ideally like - sources that look at the author's corpus as a whole rather than just dealing with one book at a time. But even with just the sources we have here it would be possible to create a more readable article. For an article based principally on book reviews but worked into more coherent prose I've recently worked on Tom Kratman. And then there's Morag Hood (author) which is particularly difficult because there I've not been able to find a single negative comment in any review of her books – I fear that this makes the article on her look like something a publisher might compile. (To be fair, Hood is an excellent author and I can't think of anything negative to say about her books either.) In Bill's case we at least have a number of critical comments. Oh, and my most recent creation is Camille Bacon-Smith which I think isn't so bad even though it's based almost entirely on book reviews. I'd still be grateful for any ideas on how to improve these articles. Haukur (talk) 09:09, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your work on improving this Haukur. I’m not really convinced that the subject of the article is notable, but it’s marginal, and if the consensus is to keep that’s fine. Mccapra (talk) 11:14, 3 September 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.