Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Hendrie Wilson


 * 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. Thanks everyone who contributed to the discussion. If you are not happy with the decision, please bring it up here. Missvain (talk) 15:01, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Robert Hendrie Wilson

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No assertion of adequate notability. Not enough coverage in reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails general notability guidelines and WP:NAUTHOR. No indication any of his books pass WP:NBOOK. His books are from the 1970's so there might be coverage I can not find. J bh Talk  18:21, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Edited nomination statement As pointed out below 'no assertion of notability' would be grounds for CSD A7. More properly there is no assertion or claim of notability that meets GNG, NAUTHOR, ANYBIO or any other notability guideline.  J bh  Talk  02:12, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  lavender |(formerly HMSSolent )| lambast  00:17, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions.  lavender |(formerly HMSSolent )| lambast  00:18, 3 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment. The subject's entry in The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction (which is already rather cryptically cited in the article) verifies the facts currently in the article, and I would tend to regard the fact that the entry exists as a fairly strong indicator of his notability. However, beyond the facts already in the article, the encyclopedia entry only mentions that he is a journalist and travel writer (and is therefore presumably the same person as the co-author of a guide to Italy that turns up on Google searches). And there doesn't appear to be much else online - my guess is that there are further sources from the 1970s that are still offline, but unless we can find them, we have no means of telling whether they would be sufficient (together with the encyclopedia entry) to firmly establish notability. PWilkinson (talk) 18:55, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Please see SF Encyclopedia - Note on Content. They . Inclusion in E of SF provides zero indication of notability. I agree there might be some coverage from the 70's but until someone finds it 'might' is not a reason for an article per notability requires verification. There needs to be some indication that sources actually exist. Thank you for taking a look at the article.  J bh  Talk  19:14, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 5 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep, included also in The Science Fiction Source Book (1984). I don't agree with the blanket dismissal of the Encyclopedia of Science Fiction. If you cite the GNG, which I think is a poor crutch at the best of times, this sort of reference in a reliable source should be admitted. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:53, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 'Admitting' it, whatever that means, is not the issue. All the entry says is he wrote four books and his birth date. There is nothing notable in the entry and the mere fact of having an entry is not notable since the inclusion criteria is 'written a science fiction book'. WP:NAUTHOR requires that an author have done something other than simply write a book or even several. Does The Science Fiction Source Book (1984) you mention have any additional information on him? Can you provide the entry so I can use it to improve the article? It would be a great help if you could since it is the only other source I know of. Thank you.  J bh  Talk  20:13, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * On the second point, the book is visible to me in a Google Books snippet, found by the search "Wilson, Robert Hendrie"; the sort of search that I would think comes under WP:BEFORE, section D, where it mentions Google Books search. While we are on guidelines, your argument goes to show that you should have nominated this article for speedy deletion, by the way, under section B of the "please be sure to" there.
 * Actually I take another view. The reason that the Encyclopedia of Science Fiction can "get away" with including obscure authors is that people want to look them up. A reference work such as this one can give somewhat better coverage. I also saw, as below, that Wilson is now a journalist, but he has published a travel book also. An article on him would serve a need. Charles Matthews (talk) 05:17, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The Google Books version simply shows him as one of 3-4 authors on one page in the index. As near as I can see it is little, if anything, more than than the E of SF entry. 'Wanting to look up' and 'serving a need' are not, in my firm opinion, legitimate reasons for keeping the article unless it can be shown he has passed the minimal guidelines we have for notability which I do not think bare mentions contribute to. Of course others have different opinions on on this so we have AfD. Cheers. J bh  Talk  11:39, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed, WP:GNG is a sufficient condition for inclusion of a topic, not a necessary one: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." So I regard its use as an argument for deletion to be tendentious, even fallacious. This is a reference site, so of course whether or not people generally would want to look up a topic here is relevant.
 * To go back to the Encyclopedia of Science Fiction, the article links to one on Robert Hale Limited the publishers. Now we should have an article on the publishers, who had a stable of authors, and what we know about Wilson could usefully appear in such an article. I.e. if that other article existed I'd be happy to merge this one into it. Charles Matthews (talk) 04:52, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to your view of the notability guidelines but Wikipedia policy and practice is that if a subject does not meet GNG or a subject specific notability guideline it should be deleted. I am unaware of any articles which simply list a publisher's stable of authors unless those authors are in and of themselves notable. In particular this would be a way to get any published author a redirect page. That is something beyond the scope of AfD. J bh  Talk  11:26, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * "Wikipedia policy"? WP:DEL-REASON mentions GNG only obliquely: under #7, you could say. I would set the bar quite high for "thorough research".
 * Certainly many people do in practice call for deletion on the basis of GNG, at AfD, and also many people nominate without (as you show) troubling with the steps actually called for by WP:BEFORE. This is a view of guidelines that sees them mainly as a way of winning arguments, rather than what they mainly are intended for, namely to indicate the expectations that Wikipedia has of editors.
 * There is another source that mentions Wilson, by the way, Souls in Metal: an anthology of robot futures (1977). It is very easy to find on Google Books.
 * Now that I have done research on the publishers, I see much better what is going on, though. I am striking my "Keep": and WP:AUTHOR probably does apply. Charles Matthews (talk) 04:43, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for continuing to look into this author. J bh  Talk  12:17, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete. None of his works appear to be notable. This travel site calls him a "travel editor of Britain’s largest-circulation women’s magazine" and barely mentions his "four published novels". Unless The Science Fiction Source Book has a significant writeup on him, he fails WP:AUTHOR. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:22, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:42, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - no reliable sources given. Nothing shows notability.--Rpclod (talk) 04:44, 11 July 2015 (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.