Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Harris (novelist)


 * 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. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-11 05:07Z 

John Harris (novelist)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

No real assertion of notability, has been on my watchlist ages, and never improved. I don't think it is bad enough for a speedy. Still, delete from me. J Milburn 19:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - the subject is a published author with a series of books to his name meeting WP:BIO. TRhe article is a stub and I've marked it as such, as well as doing some minor tidying. -- Whpq 21:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Sorry, which part of WP:BIO does he meet? J Milburn 22:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply - Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work. For example, there is a review in the New York Times at, and the series was successful enough that his daughter continues writing the series. -- Whpq 22:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: Well, that is one review, yes, it isn't enough on its own. I personally couldn't find any. J Milburn 22:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply - The author died in 1991, so I don't think online reviews will be very common.   He has a long series of books published by a real (non-vanity) press, and the books apparently are well-known enough that people collect first editions.  -- Whpq 22:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Ah, that would explain me not finding anything. This guy is almost certainly notable then, but we are gonna need more sources on him. J Milburn 22:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete unless sourced and referenced i.a.w. WP:BIO by end of this AfD Alf photoman 23:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Whpq. Aye-Aye 23:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Whpq - lack of modern reviews is no reason to delete. Bob talk 16:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Of course not, but we are yet to find older ones. J Milburn 18:08, 10 February 2007 (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.