Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roy Allen


 * 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. Steve Smith (talk) 06:46, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Roy Allen

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:SOLDIER. Lettlerhello • contribs 15:28, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 15:28, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 15:28, 27 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep Allen is the subject of a documentary film and is the main subject of a book published by Macmillan. This book review in the Washington Post makes his notability clear. As for WP:SOLDIER, that essay includes the following sentence: "If, for instance, there is enough information in reliable sources to include details about a person's birth, personal life, education and military career, then they most likely warrant a stand-alone article." Allen meets that standard. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  19:11, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  21:11, 27 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep per User:Cullen328's argument. Mztourist (talk) 03:05, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. Articles should meet more than one reliable source per GNG guidelines, also the lead-in states him as "an American."--Bettydaisies (talk) 04:16, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , a documentary, a book and a lengthy book review are three sources. There are other book reviews too. The first two are already in the article. Please explain why it is relevant to this debate that he was an American? Cullen328  Let's discuss it  21:17, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * A documentary and a book, sure, but the entire article uses just one source. And I was discussing how the lead-in as "n American, born in the north Philadelphia", hardly notable. The book, the author, nor the documentary has a WP page, and there aren't any in-depth pieces on him as a person separate from the project. I stand by my opinion.--Bettydaisies (talk) 00:43, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , there is absolutely no requirement that a book or an author needs to have a Wikipedia article in order to be considered a reliable source. Where did you get that idea? Notability is determined by significant coverage in reliable sources, not whether those sources are currently in the article. Instead of deleting an article about a notable topic, instead we improve and expand that article by adding references to more sources, and by better summarizing those sources. There are two sources in the article; the documentary film and the book, which is listed under "further reading". The book review I linked to above is a third source. There are several other book reviews. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  03:35, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, tThe subject of a documentary that occasionally airs on a pay television channel isn't notable. The book review is a loose source since his only notability comes from the literature itself, and again, does not review him as an independent subject. I'm considering the parameters in the scope of wider American and military history and encyclopedic merit, which again, in my opinion and experience, it does not meet. Again, I stand by my reasoning.--Bettydaisies (talk) 04:17, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Again,, there is no requirement that sources be notable, but rather that the topic is notable. Some unreliable sources are notable (like Weekly World News) and many reliable sources are not notable. In this particular case, the best source is the book which is actually is notable because it is itself the subject of several professional reviews, all of which devote significant attention to the topic at hand, which is Roy Moore . Nobody has yet written an article about the book, but it is notable nonetheless. It is reliable because it is published by Macmillan Publishers, a publisher with a very long history of publishing reliable books, and there are are no known reviews tearing this book to shreds, or impugning its credibility. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  07:40, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Again, the topic isn't notable. Upon a google search for the book title + "review", I can't find any professional reviews that cover the source. Of course the book is credible, but if Macmillan Publishers is truly reliable as you say, then perhaps every single nonfiction topic of every book they've published should also have an article, according to that precedent.--Bettydaisies (talk) 08:22, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , here is a review published by Kirkus. Here are reviews published by LibraryThing. They all discuss Roy Allen. Yes, if a topic is the main focus of a book issued by a reputable publisher and of articles in other reliable sources, then the topic is notable and ought to have a Wikipedia article. [[User:Cullen328|<b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup

style="color:#707">328 ]] Let's discuss it  18:01, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I happen to disagree. Moore is not notable enough to be included, nor is the subject of every single reputable book or book review. A a wider historical and encyclopedic perspective should be employed here; articles can't be created for every single person who did something during a significant event, lest it render the encyclopedia itself obsolete. I stand by my delete vote.--Bettydaisies (talk) 20:10, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * the entire article uses just one source As this is not a BLP, sources being in the article is irrelevant. They are only required to exist. Also articles can't be created for every single person who did something during a significant event, lest it render the encyclopedia itself obsolete. - um, what? This is entirely uncomprehensible. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:04, 5 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. Cullen328 makes a convincing case for notability. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  22:16, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak keep per Cullen328, that book itself meets NBOOK based on numerous reviews, but since it's about Allen, it lends some degree of notability to him, particularly if you count each review as coverage of Allen, which it isn't much of a stretch to do. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:12, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - Notability is clearly demonstrated as having been established. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:04, 5 January 2021 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.