Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Curtis (literary agent)


 * 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. Black Kite (talk) 16:13, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Richard Curtis (literary agent)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not satisfy notability under WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. The page is based on trivial coverages, press releases and primary sources. Graywalls (talk) 17:41, 3 May 2020 (UTC) Graywalls (talk) 17:41, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 17:41, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 17:41, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 17:41, 3 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment - Sloppily written--has the novelization of Halloween as published in 1972... Caro7200 (talk) 17:57, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * comment clarify please. What do you mean? I am not seeing how that book satisfies WP:NAUTHOR Graywalls (talk) 02:36, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It doesn't. I meant only that the article contains inaccurate information.  If I were "voting," it would be a weak delete. Caro7200 (talk) 12:49, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , ok thank you for your clarification. If you have a position, please consider placing your vote. Graywalls (talk) 10:48, 7 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete a non-notable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:35, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment, lots of reviews by Kirkus of Curtis' books that are, according to WorldCat, still held (allbeit ebooks?) in numerous libraries eg. The Genial Idiots 140 libraries (review here), So Much To Live For 80 libraries (review here), Chiang Kai-shek 190 libraries (review here - "A flaccid, formless book, overweighted with scenes of childhood .. and gratuitous gossip .. and overprotective of Chiang's reputation.", love this one!:)), The Berrigan Brothers 200 libraries (review here), Beyond the Bestseller 245 libraries (Publisher Weekly (PW) review here) (incidently, in a PW Q&A, Garth Nix mentioned this title as one of the books on publishing that he loved (near the end under "Is there anything you know about the business that most writers don’t?")), How to get your e-book published 170 libraries (PW review here) so may not be such an outright "doesn't meet WP:NAUTHOR" after all(?). Coolabahapple (talk) 14:46, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:49, 9 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment, Curtis has been in the literary publishing game for a long time, but has he been significant/influential in any way? Well, in 2000 PW named him amongst 11 people to help shape the book business for the millenium, and Jane Friedman writing in Writer's Digest included him in a roundtable question session of "Some of the (publishing) industry’s most innovative reps ..", his name/thoughts regularly appear in articles about the industry eg. in The New York Times - "Publishing: Agent Says Writers Are Cheated", Overland - "Publishers at the floodgates", The Christian Science Monitor - "Literary Agents: Midwives for New Authors". Coolabahapple (talk) 23:14, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * reply Reading through some of the sources, it doesn't seem convincing to me that he's accepted as being significant and influential with the way some of the source writes, for example "IN a book to be published this month by Houghton Mifflin, the literary agent Richard Curtis charges that publishers have always cheated authors, that some publishers are still cheating authors " If NY Times posited in their own word that he's been influential or significant, that's something else. By the way, should we use NAUTHOR, or should we use guidelines that would normally be applied to general business person because the purported notability is for "literary agent" ? Graywalls (talk) 05:07, 10 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree he doesn't technically qualify for NAUTHOR. However he has stronger sourcing for inclusion than some authors. But yet perhaps not enough for ANYBIO/GNG. For me it's a close call, however I end up as delete given what I think is borderline GNG combined with an article that is heavily promotional. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:32, 13 May 2020 (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.