Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ernest Hill (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 keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:32, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ernest Hill (author)

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

Does not appear to satisfy WP:NAUTHOR or WP:GNG. Subject does not satisfy any of the four criteria for Creative Professionals and no significant coverage for the general notability guidelines. Prod declined by an IP without explanation. Safiel (talk) 00:41, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Checking the general references for the article against WG:GNG, it actually does appear to meet those criteria, at least. It also appears that the article could be significantly expanded on the basis of them. I would vote KEEP. BPK (talk) 14:36, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it may be relevant to point out that it appears you are the creator of the article and have a conflict, as per WP:AVOIDCOI. MikeMan67 (talk) 08:46, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am indeed the creator of the article, and should have noted the fact, as it may indeed be deemed relevant by others in deciding how they would like to vote. It doesn't mean I have a conflict of interest, however -- merely that my opinion on whether or not to keep the article is predictable. Having been notified of this discussion, I was by implication invited to participate. Participants need not be neutral as to the outcome; in fact, we are expected to have and share our opinions, in order that a consensus on the question at hand be reached. If we are to exclude all interested parties from such discussions, we simply end up with no discussion. I should point out as well that, aside from creating the article, I have had nothing to do with its subsequent editing up until the time this discussion started, when I provided some references. So I don't think it can reasonably be inferred that I have that big an iron in this fire. And even if I did, it's not my opinion that determines the fate of the article, but the consensus. I'm quite okay with that. It's quite possible, even likely, that the argument will not go my way. The minimal level of interest in this issue, as demonstrated by the paucity of participating wikipedians, certainly appears to demonstrate that most folks neither know nor care about it, or whether it lives or dies. BPK (talk) 18:01, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the references given go a long way toward establishing notability, and a bit of searching confirms it. Of course, it needs improving. Some info here, and here. Pretty sure there's enough already for a short article; other sources may not be online due to the dates, but I expect sci-fi fans can dig out more eventually. 2.123.67.6 (talk) 20:56, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:02, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I presume the votes above will be included with any added here in any final tally, and so feel no need to repreat mine. BPK (talk) 18:01, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think there's a lot of room for improvement in the content area, but the references seem significant enough. SayItRight1 (talk) 19:43, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Of the sources currently in the article, I would regard just the existence of the Science Fiction Encyclopedia entry as strongly indicating notability, and the fact that the initials on it indicate that it is by John Clute strengthens this further. Damien Broderick is also enough of an authority on science fiction to be regarded as a reliable source. Usually, I would also say the same for Robert Reginald - but in this case, both sources seem to be based on the same information gathered in the 1970s and not subsequently updated; the information probably came from the subject (though I would expect that Reginald fact-checked it); and I would not be surprised to find that, in this work, Reginald was trying to cover every science fiction writer whose work was being professionally published at the time. But we do have two reliable sources (and the second reference by 2.123.67.6 gives a third, albeit by Broderick with the same co-author as the reference already in the article). Other reliable sources are likely to exist, but may well be decades old and offline (and hence difficult to find). PWilkinson (talk) 20:56, 9 February 2014 (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.