Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert MacNiven


 * 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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:26, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Robert MacNiven

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No indication of notability per WP:AUTHOR. The Black Library reference was the one reference that rescued this from the original BLP prod. It's a WP:Reliable source, but isn't evidence of notability as it's the publisher's listing for an as-yet unpublished book, and not a WP:Secondary source. There's no mention of MacNiven on the Jukepop reference, and it's doubtful whether a mention on him there would be evidence of notability. The reference from his WordPress blog, like the publisher reference, is a WP:Primary source. The remaining references are from Goodreads and a book blog, which as user-generated content is also not regarded as a reliable source on Wikipedia. Can't find any significant coverage online from reliable, secondary sources. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 16:00, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 16:02, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 16:04, 14 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - I couldn't find other coverage of him in suitable reliable sources either, so it appears that notability has not been established when measured against WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG. Drchriswilliams (talk) 16:19, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - Questionably notably better for a encyclopedia article yet. SwisterTwister   talk  07:14, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Books either self-published or published by very small presses. Nothing found in Booklist or Kirkus, which is about as un-reviewed as you can get. LaMona (talk) 23:35, 19 January 2016 (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.