Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meaburn Staniland


 * 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   delete. At present, there seems to be an acknowledgment that the article is on the fringe of notability or less.  bibliomaniac 1  5  23:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Meaburn Staniland

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

unimportant author. Fails WP:CREATIVE and WP:BIO both. Ironholds 12:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete although "unimportant author" seems weird and he is mentioned in at least one 3rd party source | here he does at present seem to fail the general notability and verifiability criteria. Plus, there is the weird thing with the name change from the edit history and such. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Wrong person; the link you gave is a different Meaburn Staniland, a Member of Parliament for the British House of Commons. The name change is actually easy to explain; the users previous edits were to the page for Preston Nicholls, and since he had little experience in creating new articles he probably copied it for use as a template and took out all the bits he didn't need/like. Ironho</b><b style="color:#696969">ld</b><b style="color:#000">s</b> 13:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry I must not have read far enough (I saw the names and the Boston mention and thought they were the same person. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

<hr style="width:50%;"/>
 * Keep, cleanup and rewrite with references: although the article in it's current state does not read like an article in an encyclopedia, it could be rewritten with references to make it better. Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 13:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Could you give reasons? AfD is a discussion, not a vote; unless you're contributing to the discussion your edits are moot. <b style="color:#D3D3D3">Ir</b><b style="color:#A9A9A9">on</b><b style="color:#808080">ho</b><b style="color:#696969">ld</b><b style="color:#000">s</b> 13:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I tried looking for references on the Internet, though I could not find much references, execpt two for his books - http://www.antiqbook.co.uk/boox/bookso/102953.shtml and http://www.booklovers.co.uk/Dealer_search_results.asp?ID=509873&Locator=Dealer%20Books%20-%20books-on Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 13:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Please read the notability guidelines on authors and similars at WP:CREATIVE. The existence of books does not make the author notable. <b style="color:#D3D3D3">Ir</b><b style="color:#A9A9A9">on</b><b style="color:#808080">ho</b><b style="color:#696969">ld</b><b style="color:#000">s</b> 14:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep as even after I've cleaned it up a bit and added sources (only one of which goes to notability, the other two are for verifiability only) it's just on the hairy edge of notable. A few more sources would make me happier as would having the full text of that Matrix article for review and data-mining. I'd also be happier if WP:BEFORE had been followed more closely but that's water under the bridge. - Dravecky (talk) 21:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  JForget  23:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions.   —Dravecky (talk) 09:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 14:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak delete As per WP:CREATIVE, though I would be glad to switch to Keep if someone can offer evidence to justify the claim of notability. Ecoleetage (talk) 19:09, 27 August 2008 (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.