Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Max Haines


 * 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 no consensus. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:42, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Max Haines

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Biography of a newspaper columnist, not properly sourced as passing WP:CREATIVE. None of the three sources here are notability-assisting ones: #1 is a Blogspot blog, #2 is the self-published website of an organization that gave him an award (but an award win needs to be sourced to media coverage, not to the award's own self-published content about itself, before it counts as a notability claim), and a tribute column written by one of his former colleagues in the newspaper that employed him (thus not a source that's independent of him.) And on a sourcing search, I cannot find content written about him in reliable sources — what I get is hits written by him, which do not assist in demonstrating notability: a person has to be the subject of reliable source coverage written by other people, not the bylined author of reliable source coverage about other things, to qualify for a Wikipedia article. As always, no prejudice against recreation if somebody can write and source something better than this, but nothing here entitles him to an automatic presumption of notability in the absence of stronger sources. Bearcat (talk) 16:50, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:27, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:27, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete per nom. Journalists are not automatically notable. Bearian (talk) 00:19, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:49, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep, also the author of 28 books. Nixon Now (talk) 04:59, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Which counts for exactly nothing in the absence of enough reliable source coverage about his writing of books to get him over WP:GNG. Writers do not get an automatic inclusion freebie just for existing; they get included for being properly sourceable and are never exempted from that for any reason — a writer can write hundreds of books over his lifetime, and still not get an article if he didn't get enough reliable source coverage for the fact. Bearcat (talk) 05:40, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:24, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep, per Nixon. Rusted AutoParts 16:16, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * On what grounds did Nixon make a valid keep argument at all? Notability is a condition of sourceability, not just of how many books a person happened to write — a person can write hundreds of books and still not be notable if media coverage about at least some of those books is lacking. Bearcat (talk) 17:07, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Such as this book review which is a source for the article? Nixon Now (talk) 19:08, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I have added a media source for the award winNixon Now (talk) 19:14, 28 October 2017 (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.