Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roger Crowley


 * 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 as per unanimous consensus and no calls for deletion outside of the nomination. A non-admin closure. And Adoil Descended (talk) 01:23, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Roger Crowley

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No evidence of any significant notability for this author. His books attract more references than he does and the books themselves may be notable but very little speaks to his own notability. The refs are book reviews. Reads more like an advertisement - they have 4 times more volume of text than the author himself.  Velella  Velella Talk 21:22, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:21, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:21, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:21, 27 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. Reviews are fine for demonstrating notability per WP:AUTHOR. The books are what he is notable for, not his favourite food or the name of his dog. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 07:59, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. I was back and forth on this one, but I ultimately decided not to nominate because I think the books and the coverage of them in mainstream media sources is enough. agt x  14:30, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Nom appears to misunderstand notability for authors, which derives form writing notable books. Many more reviews in WP:RS exist than are on the page.  Certainly article needs expansion.  But WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:07, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak keep -- His output appears to be four books and we have no other content. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:12, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The point is not that he wrote four books, which anyone can do, but that he wrote four books that attracted reviews in many reliable sources. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:44, 29 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep. Author of 4 significant books - borderline AUTHOR pass.Icewhiz (talk) 07:41, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. I agree with the nominator that more coverage of the man himself, rather than the books,  would be better, but the fact remains that coverage of his books is a kind of coverage of him, and there is just about enough there. 213.205.198.48 (talk) 22:30, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment every one of the sources is a book review - publishing agents send free copies of books to papers and periodicals, often with a suitably depraved synopsis and reviewers regurgitate these in their papers. It fills column inches at little cost. I can still see nothing here where any independent reliable source does any more than review a book. There is no literary or historical discussion, little of any setting the content in any related historical context. There is no academic discussion, no wider discussion enfolding Crowley's views with others, no analysis of his interpretation and reconstruction as you would expect with a reputable and notable author of this genre. I remain convinced that this is simple adverting and nothing more.  Velella  Velella Talk 22:45, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * If you want academic discussion then you could start with and . That list is not exhaustive, but just the academic reviews that I could find in a couple of minutes. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 00:07, 31 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep -- the reviews provided are substantive. Per common outcomes, authors of multiple books with non trivial reviews are generally kept. These are two scholarly reviews are non-trivial. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:50, 1 November 2017 (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.