Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Rivers Pitt


 * 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 of the debate was KEEP. &mdash; J I P  | Talk 14:19, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

William Rivers Pitt

 * Delete. Violation of Wikipedia's criteria of inclusion of biographies. See: Criteria for inclusion of biographies. 0nslaught 00:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Author. What is the problem here exactly? -- JJay 00:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Has written three books so notable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster 00:28, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not a notable enough author according to the deletion policy. E-goldman 00:45, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, more notable than Cyrus Farivar. Kappa 01:24, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. Seems to be published by an upstart/vanity publisher, and has abysmal amazon sales rank. However the War on Iraq he co-authored with somebody else was also translated into French, , so I suppose he's borderline notable. Flyboy Will 01:45, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, sufficiently notable by my standards. --Goobergunch|? 01:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not even close to being a notable enough author according to the deletion policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.184.70.33 (talk • contribs) - 01:49, 21 December 2005
 * Delete. This entry should be deleted. It's little more than a vanity posting, as Pitt is not well-known outside of the Democratic Underground forum. He's not an "essayist" in the league with Joan Didion or the late Susan Sontag. He's basically an amateur writer trying to score in the big leagues.There are thousands and thousands of writers out there who are much more well-known but don't get an entry in Wikipedia. JohnSmith9810 02:41, 21 December 2005 (UTC) User's 2nd edit
 * That there are a lot of writers don't have articles says less about their respective worth and more about Wikipedia's incompleteness. Check the red links at the list of Booker Prize winners, the Pulitzer Prize for History or Biography/Autobiography. The Booker Prize page was a SEA of red links only a year ago. The question on the table is not comparative, it's whether THIS author -- on his merits or lack thereof -- rates an article. --Calton | Talk 06:36, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, fails any notability. Have 5000 people bought his books?  User:Zoe|(talk) 03:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * If he has, in fact, gotten at least one book on the NY Times best-seller list, then yeah, he probably sold a least 5,000 books. That claim awaits verification, however. --Calton | Talk 06:36, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Apparently best-seller lists are compiled based on how much books are sold to bookstores by distributors, not how many actual customers bought a book. Personally, I really don't think they're reliable. - Mgm|(talk) 09:33, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete --Ajdz 03:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - not notable enough. Tom Harrison (talk) 03:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete &mdash; what the nominator is trying to say per his link is that the author is non-notable. Agreed.  &mdash; The Hooded Man &#9795;&#9794; 05:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Conditional Keep. Three actual books, including one co-authored with Scott Ritter. Claims to have cracked the New York Times bestseller list, which would make him obviously notable enough, though I'm having trouble finding proof. If true, a no-brainer; if not, borderline. --Calton | Talk 06:36, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. While his Amazon sales ranking are abysmal, Publishers Weekly called "Context Books" one of his publishers, a "well-regarded New York City publishing house". That kills the vanity argument for me. - Mgm|(talk) 09:30, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, per Mgm, Carlton, and CapitalistRoadster. --Squiddy 10:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, published author, notable, no namespace issues. Eliot 13:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Having done a quick Google over his name, I'm pretty satisfied that he is a well-known figure in the anti-war circles, although I admit to never having heard of him myself. It came up with 235,000 results, and many of them seem to refer to him. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 13:36, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. His book has been mentioned in the New York Times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by thunk (talk • contribs)
 * Keep. Seems notable enough to me.  Article needs work, though.  --MisterHand 17:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Notability page is a guideline not a policy. Jcuk 18:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The above rationales are applying the notability criteria. Uncle G 19:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep He is reasonably well known, his writings are widely disseminated, and he gets around on the speaking circuit. BCorr | Брайен 01:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, per Capitalistroadster. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 14:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Seems sufficiently prominent as a writer. -Colin Kimbrell 20:28, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. A closer inspection of the book he wrote reveals that it is nothing more than a printed interview, of which William Pitt is responsible for less than 1000 words out of the entire text of the book. "Written by" is a dubious credit at best.
 * Keep. Basing the inclusion of an entry on popularity or supposed lack there of is foolish and without merit.
 * I believe you have not read the rules for inclusion of biographies. Here is a link: Criteria for inclusion of biographies 0nslaught 17:58, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. His books are thought provoking and should not be censored by right-wingers who disagree with his views. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.209.8.157 (talk • contribs)
 * Who is trying to censor him for his political views? I don't see one person here mention right-wing or left-wing politics. The debate is whether he is notable enough to warrant a biography. 0nslaught 10:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. His books have been translated in Belgium and Germany as well. KittenKlub 00:23, 29 December 2005 (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.