Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keith Akers


 * 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   Delete.  However, I will userfy it as requested. Shimeru (talk) 05:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Keith Akers

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

The article gives no indication that Keith Akers meets WP:BIO. There's no indication that he's been the "subject of published secondary source material", that he "has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times", that he "has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his specific field", that he "is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors" or "is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique" or "has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews", or that his "work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums". +Angr 21:31, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  +Angr 21:37, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  +Angr 21:37, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - The subject is notable as an author according to WP:CREATIVE. The author's published books are well-known and have been the subject of an independent reviews. Moorsmur (talk) 18:58, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The article provides no evidence that the subject meets the notability criteria at WP:CREATIVE, nor do the criteria there say that having one's books be independently reviewed is sufficient. +Angr 21:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The person has created, ... a significant or well-known work, ..., that has been the subject ... of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. Rich Farmbrough, 09:37, 29 May 2010 (UTC).
 * Delete - no evidence that as an author he is widely cited, or that his work involves a significant new concept. Sure, what he says might be different, even original, but this falls short of WP:CREATIVE. Just saying "Jesus was a vegetarian" doesn't make you notable. StAnselm (talk) 23:25, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Userfy, not enough sources to assert notability currently, but it could become a good article. I will host it if you wish. Samwb123T (R)-C-E 23:17, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak delete I'm torn on this one. His books are published by a legitimate though minor publisher, and he once got quoted in the Washington Post. But I can't find any mainstream reviews of his books, or citations of his work by others. If User:Moorsmur or User:Rich Farmbrough would provide links to three or four of those "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews," I could change my opinion. --MelanieN (talk) 01:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * To be fair, I don't think Rich Farmbrough was claiming that such articles or reviews exist, he was merely correcting me regarding what WP:CREATIVE says. +Angr 07:41, 2 June 2010 (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.