Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lowell Mick White


 * 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. JForget 00:06, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Lowell Mick White

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non-notable author lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO.  ttonyb (talk) 20:52, 27 June 2010 (UTC) Keep. He's published two critically well-received books by reputable publishers, has won an important fellowship, has strong history of performance and teaching.He canine (talk) 23:09, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment – I see nothing in the article that points to the notability of the books. Even if that were the case, the books might be notable, but I see nothing that supports the writer's notability per Wikipedia guidelines.  There is nothing in the article supports the assertion that he won a significant award.  ttonyb  (talk) 23:24, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Keep He's published fiction in several leading journals (Callaloo, Concho River, Antietam); some of the other publications are puff, but that shouldn't take away from the significance of the more notable work. Gival is also a well-respected independent publisher, not some second-rate pamphleteer or self-pub mill, which also strongly suggests notability in the field. Vartanza (talk) 14:16, 3 July 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep as required by the GNG guideline--there are 2 acceptable 3rd party articles at least about him and his work. The keep is only a weak one because I think he is not yet notable. One of the two books is just a collection of previously published stories, and he has not actually won any awards. I think we should stop using the GNG and insist on actual notability in some  objective fashion according to the  field. Neither of his two books are in any way notable, being held by only a few libraries (<10).The author of a notable book is notable, though,because what fundamentally makes an author notable is having published notable works--what else could he be notable for as an author?  The references used to support the notability of the books will always support the author also. Even authors who have not written a notable book can be notable as an author on other bases, as he would be if his work were included in major anthologies.   DGG ( talk ) 17:10, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Subject is a published, known author. Notability is established, though the article needs a good reworking for form and Wiki standards. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 01:16, 11 July 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares
 * 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.