Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph G. Peterson


 * 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. ‑Scottywong | communicate _ 05:10, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Joseph G. Peterson

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Appears to fail WP:GNG as well as WP:NAUTHOR. PROD declined by article creator. I don't see any indication that he meets any of the Creative Professional guidelines. Safiel (talk) 23:46, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete I agree that it seems to fail WP:GNG as well as WP:NAUTHOR. Also looks like it may be a WP:SPA that set this up. BLP not notable at this stage.   BerkeleyLaw1979    —Preceding undated comment added 00:24, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Don't Delete (by the creator of the article) I'm only using a single user account because I infrequently edit Wikipedia and don't see a need to keep a single voice on it. I had an earlier account that I've been unable to retrieve my password from, but it's immaterial to me. Furthermore, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SPA suggests, "Existing editors must assume good faith concerning the user account, act fairly, civilly, not bite newcomers, and remember everyone was new at some time. Care is needed if addressing single-purpose accounts on their edits." Also, I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me the difference between this article and the one on "Ernest Hill (author)", or, I strongly suspect, hundreds of others I could find if I had the time. Finally, no, I am not Joseph G. Peterson, nor associated with his publishers. Thanks.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tidbit9 (talk • contribs) 17:13, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment I just proposed deletion of the Ernest Hill article for pretty much the same reason that I took this one to AfD for. In any event, refer to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If I had time to run around to search and delete articles of insignificant people of any profession I would. But there are only so many hours in a day and so there are likely to be plenty of articles on Wikipedia that probably shouldn't exist. Safiel (talk) 22:48, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000(talk) 06:13, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment Beautiful Piece was reviewed in Prairie Schooner, Chicago Sun-Times, Illinois Times, Chicago Now; Inside the Whale was reviewed in Publishers Weekly. Right now I'm not sure if all of those are good sources (there's also a blogcritics.org review but I think they take anybody?). --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:17, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment I overhauled this article to include review coverage and get rid of a lot of the irrelevant outlinks. One of Peterson's novels has been cited as an example of nonlinear narrative. Another has entered the literature as an exemplar of post-recession fiction.Dblobaum (talk) 17:30, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * STRONG DELETE per WP:GNG, WP:AUTHOR, and because the claim of "cited as an example of nonlinear narrative" applies to almost anything written after Joyce's Ulysses that isn't trade fiction and doesn't make this guy's work special. Coverage required with WP:BKCRIT would make his work special.--ColonelHenry (talk) 18:06, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:BKCRIT is not relevant. No one is suggesting an article for a book. The article in question is for an author of a body of work, which work has been reviewed in significant places and has been discussed in the critical literature.Dblobaum (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:37, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Four book reviews (I just added another) is enough for WP:NAUTHOR #1, multiple reviews. The Delete voters seem to be ignoring the book reviews which is how we usually determine notability of authors. -- Green  C  16:09, 15 February 2014 (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.