Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Milton (author)


 * 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The result was   withdrawn. lifebaka++ 17:37, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Richard Milton (author)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

See wikipedia Fringe board, users have agreed with a deletion of the page due to lack of sources and other reasons Liveintheforests (talk) 14:20, 23 May 2011 (UTC) *Delete. Fails WP:GNG and specific notability guidelines for authors. If you take out all the self-sourced sources, there are insufficient third-party sources to demonstrate notability. As the great Adolf Hitler once said, kick in the door and the whole rotten edifice comes crashing down. Marchetti 77 (talk) 15:10, 23 May 2011 (UTC). — Marchetti 77 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. NOTE: Account blocked indef by Sarek of Vulcan as vandalism-only. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 15:37, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep The article is sourced, notability seems to have been established (most of the sources are by the author, but the other sources are what I'm concerned about). It could use some more sources, yes, but that's not an issue worth deleting the article over.   - SudoGhost&trade; 14:56, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, meets WP:AUTHOR, even if it is for notoriety instead of acclaim. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 15:07, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Article needs a delete. It does not match to wikipedia regulations, no third party references.Liveintheforests (talk) 15:17, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Umm...you already gave your position when you submitted the AfD nom, so you don't get to !vote again. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 15:20, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I've just updated it to include more third party references. I'm assuming publications (books) count as references. If I look at any wikipedia articles on published writer's pages, list and summary of published books and biographical data are what makes up most of the page. I'd personally be very happy to take the 'controversies' part out, just leaving it as facts about a well-read and published author.Wellsworth 16:40, 23 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wellsworth (talk • contribs)
 * Speedy keep as this is a pointy nom per this ANI thread   ArcAngel    (talk) ) 15:47, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * changed my mind article needs to be kept. I have also found 3 third party references which have reviewed miltons books. The controversies section is also well sourced and should be kept. :)Liveintheforests (talk) 17:25, 23 May 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.