Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Cline

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 in either direction. Being in many libraries and being well-known in certain circles are not a reasons to keep. Being poorly sourced in itself is not a reason to delete, when sources do actually exist. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:23, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Cline

Not WP:Notable. No sources cited in article. It also seems like self-promotion. Interestingly enough a Google news archive search for "Edward Cline Sparrowhawk" (that's the name of his book series) shows a couple of local stories about book signings and a letter to the Wall Street Journal by a fan. Borock (talk) 17:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- SpacemanSpiff (talk) 17:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- SpacemanSpiff (talk) 17:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - not my thing, but a quick search of WorldCat sees his books are in many libraries, thus passing WP:V and WP:N. Needs better sourcing. Bearian (talk) 21:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Publishers Weekly has reviewed Cline's books (some favorably, some not) as quoted on Amazon pages. The publisher's website also quotes Kirkus, but this may be only a brief mention. Cline and his Sparrowhawk books are well known in Objectivist circles. ReverendWayne (talk) 21:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete By my understanding of WP notability he has to be discussed himself in secondary sources, not just have his books reviewed and bought by libraries.Northwestgnome (talk) 03:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Cline appears to meet two criteria of WP:AUTHOR (multiple independent reviews, works in libraries) either of which should suffice. ReverendWayne (talk) 18:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - This seems to be the criteria you are referring to:

"The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews."

"The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums, or had works in many significant libraries."

His books seem to be historical novels written for young readers. Such are always in demand by public libraries, but I don't think that makes him notable as an author. There is also no evidence given that his books are "significant or well-known."Borock (talk) 17:08, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep' — Per above. The fact that this article is poorly sourced does not mean it should be deleted. LaszloWalrus (talk) 19:42, 19 June 2009 (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.