Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thaddeus Rutkowski


 * 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. Consensus is for the article to be retained. North America1000 09:12, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Thaddeus Rutkowski

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

fails WP:AUTHOR. Limited coverage. Hardly subject to critical acclaim. None of his publications are notable LibStar (talk) 10:20, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:56, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:56, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Strong Keep ... This is incorrect there is considerable critical coverage of this author's work as well as his award and and slew of published pieces. The article is strong enough as it stands but I will add numerous citations. This is the umpteenth time the editor above has nominated an article for deletion without informing the creator; why is there not a rule for this. Is it so that those who would make an opposing argument will be blindsided? Is this an encyclopedia or UFC? This article should standMasterknighted (talk) 13:11, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * you found the AfD regardless. You mention awards plural but article states only one award. LibStar (talk) 13:59, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Comment There are other times I did not find it and the point is not that i found it but that a certain someone nominated with the intention of it not being discovered by I. But that being cast aside as the main issue of the debate is at hand yes it is one award (no come to think of it awards Nuyorican Poetry slam champion) and the author has been nominated for others but it is a major award and the writer has been brought back as a panelist for the same award. Further it is an major award for a body of work.Masterknighted (talk) 14:14, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * being a panellist for an award does not meet WP:AUTHOR. the standard is significant contribution and recognition. And your arguments on being notified or not are not arguments that advance keep so you can keep mentioning it till the cows come home. I also fail to see how this person strongly meets WP:AUTHOR. in fact a closing admin is likely to overlook your use of strong LibStar (talk) 14:41, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * having a "slew of published pieces" is not a criterion for notability. Unless these pieces are notable or have achieved significant acclaim like with major awards. Again I don't see any strong keep indeed keep here. LibStar (talk) 14:46, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Comment You may have appointed yourself prosecutor but be far from it from you to put yourself in the shoes of being the decider. First there are awards, second slew is your word in this case as if to shift it into my discourse from some other arrangement of words the case being they are not only citations but in the case of the New York Times and Salon publications which he has written for. If you choose to ignore what the ground rules of any fair discourse are so be it. There is a preponderance of criterion here whether or not a single article is credence alone for notability the subject has written three reviewed novels, has a fellowship from a major notable foundation (being a panelist is not the main argument put forth here) a poetry slam championship, an academic role and plenty of other publications the combination makes him notable. If you want to put me through my paces like a show horse go ahead.Masterknighted (talk) 16:23, 9 August 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep An online search turned up a fellowship, two awards and several reviews of the subject's books by national publications. There is sustained news coverage of his books. Passes WP:GNG and WP:Author. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 20:23, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —  The   Magnificentist  15:56, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Like AuthorAuthor I found multiple reviews in independent reliable sources, and it didn't take me even five minutes. (I'm also concerned by the lack of notice to the article's creator, and the antagonistic tone of some comments on this page; that's not how we should behave towards one another here.) — GrammarFascist  contribs talk 16:11, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep serious author, often reviewed. Not entirely clear why he has been AfDd. gidonb (talk) 04:26, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * being a "serious author" is not a notability criterion. LibStar (talk) 08:08, 19 August 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.