Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keith Garebian (2nd 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 keep‎. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 09:12, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Garebian

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of a writer, not properly sourced as having a strong claim to passing WP:AUTHOR. This is written differently enough from the first version to not qualify for immediate speedy deletion as a recreation of deleted content, but still isn't making a better case for notability.
The attempted notability claim here is that he's been a winner of minor local or regional literary awards that are not prominent enough to constitute instant notability freebies in the absence of passing WP:GNG, but the sourcing still isn't adequate to get him over GNG: of the five footnotes here, one is a dead link, one is a directory entry, two are Q&A interviews in which he's answering questions about himself in the first person, and the only one that represents third-party journalism comes from a weekly community hyperlocal in his own hometown.
I've also already had to remove several primary sources from the article, namely his own self-published website about himself and two pieces of his own bylined writing about other subjects, which are not notability-builders either: you don't make a writer notable by citing his writing to itself as proof that it exists, you make a writer notable by citing his writing to third-party coverage and analysis about it as proof that it's been externally validated as significant by people other than himself.
The interviews and the hyperlocal would be acceptable for use as supplementary sourcing if there were other, better sources being cited alongside them, but are not GNG makers in and of themselves if they're all he's got -- but none of the other sources that have been used here are notability-building ones at all, and nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to pass GNG. Bearcat (talk) 16:39, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 16:39, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:29, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Prolific author, has several reviews published in Canada [1], [2], [3]. This one as well [4]. Oaktree b (talk) 20:52, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: coverage in a newspaper [5] and much coverage from the Wikipedia Library using the link above. He was also a theater critic for Canadian journals back in the 1970s [6], and was the author of a critical review of My Fair Lady [7]. I know Canada has a small population and we don't get much attention, but I'm amazed no one's ever heard of him! Oaktree b (talk) 20:54, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I wrote/updated this after attending a reading of his in Canada and taking a photo for Commons; he was well received by fellow authors at the multi-author reading and by attendees, and clearly well known in the literary community. He seems to have with a number of equally read long form critical reviews of major works over the years. has snag separate followings for his criticism and his poetry. Would definitely benefit from better sourcing, but deletion is not the answer. – SJ + 00:03, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Better sourcing has to be shown to exist, not merely presumed to maybe exist, before deletion ceases to be the answer. So if you're the one who wants to create the article, then you're the one who has to find the correct quality and depth and volume of sourcing off the top, and use it in the article you create right from the start. You can't just create an article with bad sources, and then say "well, find better sources for me then" if somebody challenges the bad sourcing — there's no guarantee that every person who exists necessarily always has any better sourcing at all, so it's on you to use better sourcing from the jump. Bearcat (talk) 14:21, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would say the existing sources and works/publisher list satisfy GNG. And AfD has always worked better as a third rather than first resort. You might try just asking for more sourcing. – SJ + 01:04, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:AUTHOR. Going by the sources in the article, Garebian's works have won sufficiently significant critical attention to pass the SNG threshold. There's clearly something of encyclopedic worth to be written on this subject. —Alalch E. 17:45, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject's achievement was recognized by the library system of his city (7th largest city in the country). It has met WP:AUTHOR. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 23:09, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keith Garebian (2nd nomination)

Keith Garebian

Navigation menu

Search