Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Rivers Pitt (3rd nomination)


 * 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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 15:49, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

William Rivers Pitt
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG. Plenty of articles by this person, but hardly one about him. Let alone WP:RS. Article is under sourced and (partly) autobiographical. Kleuske (talk) 09:48, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Kleuske (talk) 09:48, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Kleuske (talk) 09:48, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:21, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:22, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:23, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:24, 6 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete Im not sure this guy passes WP:AUTHOR. The previous 2 AfD's for this article mention that he was a NYT best seller, although that is not actually a criteria that exists in WP:BIO.  Aside from that, a few modestly successful books and an unremarkable journalism career dont make for notability, IMO. Bonewah (talk) 14:42, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete an in no way notable writer and journalist with nothing even close to showing notablity and no where near enough sourcing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:43, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. It looks like he co-authored one well-received book and then kind of faded away with more books that fewer and fewer people read. But I improved the article so that it has one reliably-published profile on Pitt himself and five reviews of his first two books. I think that's enough to make a case for WP:AUTHOR, though not a strong one. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:09, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete: Even with David Eppstein's solid work, I don't think this meets WP:AUTHOR. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:25, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:AUTHOR based on the multiple reviews of his works. Thanks to Eppstein above for incorporating them into the article. TJMSmith (talk) 11:15, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Just out of curiosity, which part of WP:AUTHOR do you feel this article has demonstrated? Bonewah (talk) 16:04, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The third point. His works (books) are the subject of "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." If only one book had been reviewed multiple times, I would have suggested redirecting to that work. In this case, several of his books are reviewed. TJMSmith (talk) 16:16, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I read that as only in conjunction with the first part "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work" Of course, what counts as significant or well-known will be based in part on what articles and reviews say so there is that. Bonewah (talk) 20:22, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:33, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Two books with reviews, along with the other journalistic activities JUST pushes it into keep Freeranging intellect (talk) 05:13, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - He appears to be notable given the reception provided to his two initial books. I'm not too sure about looking at this overall career, but deletion still seems like the wrong call to me. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 17:32, 14 April 2020 (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.