Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard House


 * 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) – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  22:10, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Richard House

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:BOOK. Primary notability is centered around the fact that Mr House's book, The Kills, was longlist[ed]. Longlisting means that the book was one of a very long list of books from newish authors. I don't thing it's donates notability, merely the fact it was put in the list and discarded. Entering a competition is not the same as winning it. If found non-notable, then the The Kills article should be deleted. scope_creep talk  20:50, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep One of 13 authors longlisted for the 2013 Man Booker Prize, arguably the most illustrious literary prize aside from the Nobel Prize in Literature, seems notable enough for me. Flaming Ferrari (talk) 21:03, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  Jinkinson   talk to me  21:09, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 6 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Passes WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. The Kills was reviewed by The Guardian, The Telegraph, The Independent and other publications. Bruiser was reviewed by The New York Times and other publications. He wrote at least one other novel, Uninvited, but I think the above clearly points to notability. EricEnfermero  HOWDY! 03:51, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete There is no presentation of any awards won (nominations don't count). The reviews of his books don't count toward WP:GNG. He is not the subject.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:24, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * P.S. N.B.: none of these reviews discuss the author:
 * http://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/aug/23/the-kills-richard-house-review
 * http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/fictionreviews/10230850/The-Kills-by-Richard-House-review.html
 * http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/reviews/the-kills-by-richard-house-picador-20-8803071.html
 * Thus, GNG is not relevant.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:27, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:AUTHOR: multiple published books with multiple published high-profile mainstream-media reviews. (As well as the ones listed above for The Kills, there are reviews of Uninvited on Kirkus Reviews and Publishers Weekly at least, and it was novel of the week at the New Statesman.) @TonyTheTiger: It doesn't matter that we don't have articles discussing his hair color or dating preferences; he's notable as a writer and we have plenty of articles discussing his writing. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:31, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - is correct but only if we assume that each article is an island, which is something advocated for by WP:NOTINHERITED.  WP:NOTINHERITED is WP:NOTPOLICY and entirely gumpf.  Applied to reality as opposed to the aberrant fantasies of some Wikipedians, we can come to a better understanding.  This understanding is that the general consensus on this is that a page should actually exist.  Biographical details might be a bit thin on the ground, and if he wants his WP:BLP WP:PRIVACY that's fine; we include what we can WP:V. A decent "biographical" article without major biographical details can be written consisting of a bibliography and references to book reviews.  Some of the books themselves may also have articles.  The key is understanding that this won't be an article like William Shakespeare in style but more like Shakespeare's plays with the odd bit of biographical info thrown in. Barney the barney barney (talk) 17:32, 6 August 2014 (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.