Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Hare (author)


 * 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. Michig (talk) 08:58, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

William Hare (author)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable author. Notability not supported by references. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:36, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. GSS  (talk) 11:08, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  Musa  Talk  14:41, 10 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete as News, Books, browsers and Highbeam seemingly found some links but nothing surprisingly better. Notifying past users and .  SwisterTwister   talk  00:06, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * weak Keep. He has 5 books with about 200-300 libraries holding each, and there will presumably be reviews, though they need to be looked for. He's written quite a miscellany. This may not be an autobio, for he's a published author, but some parts were almost indecipherable. I've cleaned up what I was sure of.   DGG ( talk ) 00:46, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Yes, he's written some books, but that's not enough for notability. There is one review in Booklist, and zero in Kirkus. No impact. Not notable. LaMona (talk) 03:35, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * weak keep, I'm with DGG here. Not only do libraries hold his books, his film noir books get cited in other books about film noir.  A proquest search on the title turned up a published review of his history of the Holy Land.(now added to page)  I hope the article creator will return with more references, because searching for someone named William Hare who writes on divers topics is like looking for a specific rabbit in Farmer MacGregor's garden.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:22, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13(talk) 09:34, 17 December 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment Unfortunately, this has in the last day become a cringe-worthy press release, supported by primary sources. If it's kept it'll need a lot of clean-up. 2601:188:0:ABE6:AC2E:9C35:B399:A9E0 (talk) 13:35, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:57, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete (I commented as the IP above, and edited the article to remove a lot of unsourced content). I can't find much, or any, substantial coverage about the author or his books. Inclusion in libraries doesn't appear to satisfy WP:AUTHOR, and if there isn't any in-depth coverage about him from WP:RELIABLE sources, it's difficult to see keeping this. I was probably mistaken to refer to this as an autobiography--more likely this was begun by a friend or a student as an assignment. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:08, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Keep. Clearly a notable author, with many library holdings and there should be corresponding reviews. The format and the style are incomprehensibly bad, but ut's been partly rewritten already, and I'm rewriting it further. Not characteristic of student work; can't conceivably have been written by a published author themselves, so I remain piuzzled. But it can be rescued.   DGG ( talk ) 05:59, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm sure you didn't mean to vote 'keep' twice, and must have forgotten your earlier comment. Thanks, 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:13, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I did have a feeling I'd seen it before ....  DGG ( talk ) 04:02, 27 December 2015 (UTC)


 * An account persists in adding poorly sourced and badly written promotional content. I continue to remove the cruft, but each time I'm led to question whether the author's works, represented in libraries, are enough to establish notability. Perhaps it is, and in this respect DGG may be ultimately authoritative, but lacking extensive coverage of the author or his books, this reminds me of artist bios that use a listing of gallery shows to support notability, in lieu of objective coverage. At any rate, the recurrent unacceptable edits may induce a request for page protection, and in the short term muddy the ability to properly assess the article. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:07, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per DGG. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:55, 30 December 2015 (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.