Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael A. Martin


 * 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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. However, the nom does have a point. If some reviews of his works don't turn up I suspect we will be back here again in a few months. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:02, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Michael A. Martin

 * – ( View AfD View log )

BLP with no reliable sources. I was unable to locate any significant coverage in reliable sources. Michig (talk) 17:39, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment The titles this author has written can be verified easily enough by visiting Amazon.com, or the Simon and Schuster web site. --Originalmichaelamartin (talk) 19:34, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. It's possible for an author to have no coverage yet still be notable by virtue of having created notable works. The WP:GNG doesn't explicitly say so, but Notability (people) does suggest that this author passes the criteria by having "made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field." ~Amatulić (talk) 19:49, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree he could be deemed notable by having written notable works, but I couldn't find any coverage of his works to show that they are 'notable' by Wikipedia standards.--Michig (talk) 22:31, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I couldn't either after going through 5 pages of Google hits. Maybe the author himself could provide some sources for reliable reviews. He does have an active Wikipedia account; see User talk:Originalmichaelamartin. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:25, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm, do you guys read the line above?? 22 books on Amazon.com, bio and books on Simon and Schuster Regards, SunCreator (talk) 23:37, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The number of books on Amazon com, and primary sources like the publisher, don't meet WP:BLP notability criteria. Amazon sells a lot of self-published books from vanity presses, too. I'm not saying that's the case here, but the point is that counting Amazon hits isn't a gauge of notability. And a review from the publisher is irrelevant it because isn't an independent source. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:17, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep: Considering that this article has dozens of incoming links from other Wikipedia articles, this author is clearly relevant to quite a bit of other Wikipedia content.  Peacock (talk) 19:50, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak weep per Amatulić, WP:CREATIVE, and WP:BARE - he's notable based on his works, like most authors. Bearian (talk) 14:59, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. If individual works of his are notable enough for articles, and there are a substantial number of them, it's reasonable to assume that he is notable.  The article clearly needs improvement to document that, however. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 21:41, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see any reliable sources in any of the articles about his works. If they were demonstrably notable rather than just currently having articles here (a big difference), there may be a case for keeping.--Michig (talk) 21:59, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It's an odd situation. The author states on his talk page that "all of my post-television-series ENTERPRISE novels are notable in that they are the only official, CBS-authorized accounts of events in the Star Trek universe that chronologically follow the fourth and final season of STAR TREK: ENTERPRISE." This is certainly a valid claim of notability, although finding an independent source to verify such a statement would be difficult (beyond the obvious fact that CBS authorized publication of the books). ~Amatulić (talk) 00:12, 10 August 2011 (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.