Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Archambault


 * 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. JohnCD (talk) 18:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

John Archambault

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Article is not badly written for a new editor, however the references used here are not adequate to establish notability. Works by the author himself are primary sources, and to establish notability, we must have multiple, reliable, third-party references. Third-party references must satisfy the Reliable Sources guideline, and answers.com and jrank.org do not meet this threshold. A cursory search of Google News Archives brought up only two mentions of this author that I could find, neither of which seemed particularly significant in coverage or length. My attempts to redirect to the article about the book he co-authored were reverted, so I bring it here for discussion. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 15:29, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep, speedy close. Author has written multiple award-winning children's books. GNews search on "John Archambault" + Chicka turns up scores of articles and reviews . Something's gone wrong with the nom's search. Wikipedia has articles on multiple books he authored, so there isn't a plausible redirect target anyway. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I am working on finding reliable sources. I think the about the author sections in some of his books would be acceptable? If not, please let me know. Also, would the about the author page on his website be ok or no? I would like to fix the article if that is ok, but I am new to this whole thing so I guess I just need a little help. Stephanie Sundheimer (talk) 17:57, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Hullaballoo's search is accurate, so there are sufficient sources to prove notability. "A cursory search" is no justification for bringing an article for deletion. Book Review Index shows 59 reviews in good sources such as Publishers' Weekly, aKirkus, and School Library Journal, and quite a number of other places. I'm pasting the information to the article talk p; it will need formatting.    DGG ( talk ) 19:19, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * A search that turns up only two hits is a perfectly legitimate rationale to bring a topic to AfD for discussion. Your comment otherwise strikes me as assuming bad faith. I'm sorry I was not able to find these other sources, but that's why we have AfD. Since sources have been found by someone else, this AfD may be closed. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 12:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep A very well written first article by a new editor. Looking a Google Books for John Archambault turns up over 2000 results, along with the news results pointed out by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. Clearly a notable author. On a side note, I'm very impressed with the high quality work Stephanie has done here. I should point out that technically I am her mentor, but she hasn't had to come to me for any help whatsoever and has the making of a great editor.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 16:56, 1 April 2011 (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.