Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Mallory


 * 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. (non-admin closure) — UY Scuti Talk  15:27, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Michael Mallory

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Definitely deletable as this article is questionably notable and improvable with my best search links this, this and this. Should this be deleted, it may be best to replace it with the Michael Mallory from Recurring characters of Sliders (I'm willing to initiate it) and it's worth noting this is what the article initially had. Pinging tagger and interested subject users,  and. SwisterTwister  talk  08:34, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  08:36, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animation-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  08:36, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  08:36, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  08:36, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. Looks notable to me. His books are well represented on OCLC WorldCat . Rmhermen (talk) 16:47, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Well... the problem with this is that WorldCat holdings aren't really considered to be a sign of notability at this point in time. If an author has their books in 200+ libraries apiece (meaning each book is in 200+ libraries) then that can help bolster notability along with other sources, but so far this is considered to be more of an exclusionary tool than an inclusionary one. Basically, we would still need coverage in independent and reliable sources, as WC by itself is not enough to save an article. I've lobbied to have WC listings used as a sign of notability (if the author has 2+ books in 200+ libraries each) but so far there has been no consensus that it should be included. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  04:28, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. Library holdings can be a sign of notability whenever we want it to, for any individual case. If we do it enough times, it will become common practice and then a practical guideline. We make our own rules, and we can make exception., since you agree with me that it should be accepted, why not vote to make an exception here?  DGG ( talk ) 05:44, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm a little nervous to do that since it isn't officially part of the guidelines at this point in time. I do like the idea of setting more precedent, but I want to make sure that there's some sourcing to ensure that it can't be brought back to AfD until this officially gets added. However I am finding some sourcing that shows that his work is frequently cited as authoritative in academic sourcing like this:, , . One of his books has received a review from Famous Monsters of Filmland, but I'm having some trouble finding the review at this point in time. He's received coverage from Blastr too. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  06:43, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep. I managed to find just enough to show that he's fairly well thought of in his field and that there is coverage of his work. His work seems to be frequently cited in academic texts like this and this, along with the ones I've linked above. He's also won a Derringer Award, which is fairly major in the mystery world - enough to where it'd at least give partial notability. FWIW, I do think that library holdings should count towards notability if there are sufficient numbers for each book, so hopefully the evidence given can help show proof that large library holdings can be signs of notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  06:49, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 09:57, 12 November 2015 (UTC) Keep Comment  - without wishing to venture an opinion on the notability of this article, Tokyogirl79 is surely right, we don't need to make exceptions: if someone is notable, there will be reliable sources. If those sources haven't caught up yet, then it is WP:TOOSOON and the article should be deleted or moved to user space to await better sources. Thus if a book has library holdings and is worth reviewing, reviews will arrive, and we should wait for those. Many rules are worth challenging; the notability rules are lax enough as they are. However, since Tokyogirl179 has found some sources, this probably just about scrapes over the (ridiculously low) notability bar. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:09, 14 November 2015 (UTC) SBaker43 (talk) 02:02, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - The WC argument (for notability) is: If he's produced the volume of material summarized in the article there have been reviews, criticisms, bibliographies produced; we haven't found them yet. I'm not listed in OCLC; hence it's almost certain that I don't have a claim to notability from writing. Given the subjects of his material, it probably won't be in the usual places.


 * 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.