Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keir Thomas


 * 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 weak keep. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000(talk) 05:09, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Keir Thomas

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:55, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete BLP of apparently non-notable person. Articles that the author has written don't count toward bio notability. Paviliolive (talk) 23:13, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Very weak keep based on new evidence Barely passes wp:A7 - not even close to the GNG. Also suspected wp:COI Neonchameleon (talk) 00:35, 5 February 2014 (UTC) update: Neonchameleon (talk) 23:10, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. No obvious signs of notability on Google. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:39, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Ehhh, I guess maybe it squeaks by. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:37, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep The Wikipedia article on his poetry publication Puppywolf should probably be merged into this article for now. But Keir is notable per substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. His work has been reviewed here and here for example. Articles by the author in major publications also adds to his notability. Candleabracadabra (talk) 15:27, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:41, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:41, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:41, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:41, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:41, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Weak keep His books have a few reviews, some now added to article. --Colapeninsula (talk) 23:15, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak keep meets minimum GNG requirements.LM2000 (talk) 07:10, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * STRONG DELETE WP:AUTHOR applies here and would advise us to burn this. I think the sources on this are not significant coverage as required by the WP:GNG. Sure, he writes...but none of his works would meet WP:BKCRIT, he doesn't meet the basic two requirements of WP:ANYBIO or the four apposite points of WP:AUTHOR (he is not regarded as important or widely cited; is not known for introducing new concepts or theories; 3. is not the creator of well-know n works or been the subject of independent books, films, etc.; and 4. none of his works haven't won significant critical attention. The Linux award is incredibly minor and is no where near significant. Sorry, I don't see how this could even be a weak keep. ALSO...this article was started by User:Keir himself who is responsible for 80% of its content (100% before this AFD). Delete as a non-notable subject compromised by being the product of conflict of interest and self-promotion vanity editing.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:46, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - authors of computer-related books tend to have more online reviews of their works than traditional sources (as in this case, about Linux systems). Bearian (talk) 21:51, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 10:21, 13 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:AUTHOR #3 multi book reviews. -- Green  C  17:17, 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.