Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roger Burrows


 * 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   no consensus.  MBisanz  talk 22:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Roger Burrows

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

The Article is unclear if it is concerning a person or a book has no references which are reliable. Submitted article is deleted. //Melonite (talk) 18:34, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * its hard to get further references, but i do have at least one. the article is on the author, who is known mostly for this title. the book is published by 2 major publishers, random house and running press. the book itself is the reference for the material on the author. since its not self published, i think the material should stand as referenced. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:04, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * i note that the user who tagged this article for deletion is blocked, one of the (minor?) complaints was tagging articles for deletion excessively. I found the phrase "submitted article is deleted" odd. i hope when others review this article they will acknowledge this history and view the article objectively. though i disagree, i think a case can be made for making the article about the book series rather than the author, but i welcome any comments provided here. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 15:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

KEEP Can be improved, and subject is obviously notable. AFD deletes topics, not articles. The content can always be made better.Hello, My Name Is SithMAN8 (talk) 22:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

Weak Keep Sources cited aren't really that good, but should be enough to establish notability. LK (talk) 09:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete I dont see any significant coverage in any of the refs listed (though I cant read the books listed, they dont seem like the kind of sources that would confer notability on this individual) Corpx (talk) 08:52, 28 June 2009 (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.