Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kellow Chesney


 * 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. Mgm|(talk) 10:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Kellow Chesney

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Not sure what to make of this. To start with, there is simply no context. It reads like a bio, that's all. Disputed prod, the disputer said "notability is hinted at", assuming due to the fact of the external likes. However, those external links are simply commercial sites. He wrote a, or more than one, book. That's all? Yngvarr (t) (c) 12:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC) 
 * Weak Keep, as I think a talk page discussion for the Prod may have given more insight, and it appears as if this is a relatively notable author even though the article is of poor quality and does not describe why. The author's work The Victorian Underworld is cited in more than a few Google Book searches, such as Miriam Dixson The Real Matilda:Woman and Identity in Australia, 1788 to the present,Helen J. Self's Prostitution, Women, and Misuse of the law and G.W.M. Reynolds by Anne Humpherys, Louis James. Mrathel (talk) 15:56, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Inclusion in Gale contemporary Authors is enough. It's a major selective encyclopedic   reference work, with edited independent articles. It's a sufficient source for anyone.   We cover everything and everyone in other   encyclopedias, except the most specialized ones which give  non-selective coverage.  DGG (talk) 20:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MacMed (talk) 02:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep meets WP:CREATIVE as his books are held in many significant libraries, including university and research libraries. I will point out that Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion may differ from another encyclopedia's guidelines and each subject should be judged on its merits by our guidelines. Drawn Some (talk) 02:13, 18 May 2009 (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.