Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/M. Christian


 * 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.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 00:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

M. Christian

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

After five years we seem to have established only that he has written a book. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 20:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - per WP:BEFORE and WP:BK. This author has written a number of books that are available on Amazon.com and Barnes & Noble. The article has citations and other ghits can provide more reliable sourced addition or length to the article. The nominator placed a PROD on the article and an admin removed it after reviewing the PROD. DGG explained his actions in this DIFF. Please see articleRevHist to see that the admin was not its creator. This is a classic case of a nominator being too eager to delete an article before following WP:BEFORE's admonition to improve first. --Morenooso (talk) 20:35, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as nominator. What has WP:BK got to do with this?  The article is about a person and the criteria at WP:AUTHOR are rather more stringent: it seems fairly clear that he does not meet them.  There is no evidence of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, for example.  WP:BLP also applies here of course.  Wikilawyering about alleged failure to follow WP:BEFORE has nothing to do with the case.  Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 20:46, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * N.B.--the convention if for the nom to express his views in the nomination, and not make a separate "del" entry, as that appears as a second vote.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- --Darkwind (talk) 21:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * very weak Keep   That I decline a BLP prod because there is some sourcing does not mean that I necessarily think the article should be in Wikipedia. In this case, a very weak keep only, because Amazon reviews are not enough to establish notability, unless they've been reprinted from a reliable source. But he works in a subgenre where sourcing is particualrly difficult, & I leave it for those who know SF to decide if these prticular reviews can be considered sufficient.  KT did quite right to  bring it here, where the community can decide. He did make one error, which I can hardly blame him for, as I also didn't catch it. If it's been here since 2006, it's not eligible for BLP prod, which is only for new articles.  DGG ( talk ) 21:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per Morenooso.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * N.B.--the convention is for afd participants not to vote, because afd is not a vote. Rather, the convention is for afd participants to discover and evaluate sources usable in improving the article in question. I hope i have helped clarify this convention for you. 160.39.213.222 (talk) 02:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Not really. AfD participants indicate whether they believe the subject article is about a notable topic.  The closer reflects the consensus of the participants in that regard.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:26, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You're almost there! Just two steps away. First, remember that notability is defined in terms of sources.  Second, change "not really" to "you're right, because".  And then you've got it!  160.39.213.222 (talk) 16:07, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * User:160.39.213.222 has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep Google news had 12 thousand results to sort through so I added in the name of one of his books, and found a news source, Locus Online, stating "Among the best-known and best of the erotic-SF writers is M. Christian." They speak highly of him in that opening line alone.  One another new source appears as well.  More could probably be found on him, but that's enough for me.   D r e a m Focus  09:35, 1 May 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.