Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Hearne


 * 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. j⚛e deckertalk 02:12, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Kevin Hearne

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Already deleted once for lack of substantive sourcing, the cited sources are not about the subject, they are either primary sources cited for claims about his books (it was in X list, source: X list) or are very obviously press releases originating with the subject's PR. No source has ever been cited which actually establishes the significance of the subject - this is, in effect, an unsourced BLP as there are no independently verifiable biographical details at all. Guy (Help!) 12:43, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep The author meets the basic notability standard set out in WP:AUTHOR. The person has created ... collective body of work, that has been the subject of ... multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.. He's a Random House author with twelve books, and a Star Wars novel announced for March. Beyond the multiple sources listed in the article, his work has been reviewed multiple times in Publishers' Weekly, Library Journal and others., The nomination's claim that there are no independent sources simply isn't true. Reviews for books are what we use to determine if an author has been noted; they don't disqualify him for notability. That's silly. The previous deletion was based on an article that didn't have the present sourcing. I think it was also previous to him being sourced as a New York Times best selling author. The New York Times best seller list is something better than a generic "X list" for showing that an author is considered notable.__ E L A Q U E A T E   13:28, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  Everymorning   talk  13:52, 11 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep There are clearly multiple reviews of his work. A simple Google search in News shows this . Poor sourcing is not a reason to delete an article. If there was such a thing as "Snow Keep" this is a candidate. No chance this author shouldn't be listed. Thanks - Marksterdam (talk) 14:29, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The guideline that says an author of multiple books is likely to be notable, is a pointer to writers about whom there should be reliable independent sources. No version of this article has ever cited any non-trivial coverage of the subject in reliable independent sources, which is what our policy requires; this is a policy because without such sources we cannot ensure the neutrality of the article. It's especially important for living individuals. Not that I deny the subject may be notable, but I am out of patience with people who insist that something must have an article but cannot be arsed to source it properly. And no I do not mean you, I have great respect for you. My impatience is with editors who will do absolutely anything to have an article other than the one thing they actually need to do, which is to source it properly. Bah, humbug. Guy (Help!) 16:10, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Zero reliable independent sources absolutely is a reason to delete an article and always has been. The original article was created by his PR, as far as I can tell, and this version is not much different. Feel free to add well sourced information though. Guy (Help!) 16:05, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree it is annoying when Wikipedia is used for PR purposes (and this can be a big pointer to really check notability thoroughly) but, all told, unfortunately the motive for the article's creation is not a reason for deletion. Regarding sourcing/references, if the person or subject is notable and it is possible to find good references then the article should be kept. It doesn't matter that the actual article is poorly sourced or written. Wikipedia is a work in progress  and there is no deadline WP:NORUSH. I quote from the latter: "We can afford to take our time to improve articles, to wait before deleting a new article unless its potential significance cannot be established." Please also see "Why deletion of articles with potential should be avoided" under WP:PNJCS. Please also see WP:DEL-REASON - only when you can't find sources is this a reason to delete. Not that there are poor/no sources in the article itself. When I do a search for "Kevin Hearne author"  there is more than enough to prove notability under WP:AUTHOR - Marksterdam (talk) 10:19, 12 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep per User:Elaqueate's points. Best selling author, kind of a no-brainer, plenty to work with. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:55, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. Article definitely needs some expanding, but it definitely meets WP:AUTHOR. BenLinus1214 (talk) 18:00, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Keep I'm finding plenty of hits. Granted the article can be refined and pruned, but 260,000 hits on Google hints that he's, at the very least, going to pass WP:GNG Dusti*Let's talk!* 20:23, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per above.-- TMD   Talk Page.  18:23, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment This author definitely has a fan base, but counting Google "hits" is not a way to defend notability -- notability is a quality judgment, and no quantity of hits on blogs, fan sites, books signing announcements, etc., will add up to notability. After doing a search on Google you need to actually look at what you've retrieved and see if any of it amounts to reliable sources. I didn't see any. I can find PW reviews, a Library Journal review (short). I can find his books on the NYT bestseller lists, eBook, paperback. Adding these should help. But I don't find anything about him in particular. This is partly due to the fact that he is considered an author of teen fiction, which rarely gets serious attention. LaMona (talk) 00:36, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Aerospeed  (Talk) 19:58, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - as much as I disagree with the longstanding consensus, Times bestselling authors are almost always notable. Bearian (talk) 14:52, 23 December 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.