Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Sean Winters

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. MBisanz ^talk 18:19, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Sean Winters

[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)

No third party talks about him, so he has no notability. The uscatholic.org link is not a third party, it is Winters' biography because he is one of the authors who published on the website. Veverve (talk) 17:33, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Veverve (talk) 17:33, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Veverve (talk) 17:33, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Veverve (talk) 17:33, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

His two books are widely held in libraries as shown here, not voting yet Atlantic306 (talk) 23:23, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:03, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete -- Two books and a lot of denominational journalism is not (or barely) sufficient for notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:43, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

notability means coverage not achievements, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:11, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:27, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the article has been improved since nomination with the inclusion of references showing reviews of his work in ten publications including reliable sources such as Publishers Weekly, Kirkus, Library Journal and others including scholarly journals. These references show that the subject passes WP:NAUTHOR criteria 4 as his works have received significant critical attention so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 01:16, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Atlantic306: And what do we say about the subject of the article? Do you have a RS for his date of birth, his education, etc.? Veverve (talk) 09:43, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Veverve: None of that stuff is necessary to be notable. Sometimes authors lead private lives, or don't talk to press or write under assumed identities. What matters is whether people write about and notice their work. I made a page about a fanfiction by an anonymous author that ended up on the front page because it met that criteria. BuySomeApples (talk) 07:12, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the author has received enough coverage and critical attention to be notable. BuySomeApples (talk) 07:12, 25 August 2021 (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.