Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Josh Dean (writer)


 * 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 03:37, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Josh Dean (writer)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The only source in the article is just a listing for the subject's book and does not contribute to establish notability. I could not find any in-depth coverage by independent reliable sources to meet our general notability guidelines and it also fails WP:AUTHOR Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 06:52, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 06:54, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 06:54, 7 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Weak keep I found some coverage of two of his books @ newspapers.com:  , especially the first one is quite detailed. There is also this from NY Daily News, a review by Kirkus Reviews, some coverage by NPR, some coverage about the proposed movie. No full-page article solely about him but I think sufficient non-trivial coverage to pass WP:BASIC. Regards  So  Why  10:15, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Congratulations on finding those sources, I did not know about Newspapers.com. It seems like a great tool. As you point out the sources presented are not centered on him. In most cases they just mention him as the author. the first source that you found seems to be the only one that has some in-depth coverage beyond mentioning him as the author, it does not say much more though, just that he was a journalist writing his first book and some of his answers about the dog in the book. The sources I could find were either not independent or included just mentions of the subject and were only focused on the books or on the taking of the submarine. The sources you uncovered are a step in the right direction, since the first might be regarded as more than a trivial mention, but my feeling is that we probably still need more sources with in-depth coverage of the subject himself. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 11:20, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:08, 14 September 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep not Nom's fault, really.  Nomination of a lightly-soruced, new article about a writer was not unreasonable.  Thing is, Dean's new book is hot, hot, hot. (gNews search here: ).  And he is a respected journalist, just needs a better article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:05, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover (U)(T)(C) 17:40, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Coverage of this author's works in multiple reliable sources, which satisfies WP:AUTHOR #3.  gongshow  talk  01:15, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep passes GNG.L3X1 (distænt write)  03:31, 29 September 2017 (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.