Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Roscoe

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The result was nomination withdrawn. Bearcat (talk) 02:07, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Roscoe

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

WP:BLP of a writer which makes no strong claim of notability that would satisfy WP:CREATIVE — in actual fact, the topic has previously used the WP:OTRS system to actively circumvent any attempt to actually acknowledge his strongest claim to notability (i.e. the fact that he was one of the most prominent gay writers publishing in Canada in the early 1990s — and yes, sources for that fact do exist and were cited.) Which thus leaves us with virtually nothing we can actually write about him besides "this person exists" — but merely existing is not what gets a writer into Wikipedia. If we can't actually touch the core reason why he would qualify for a Wikipedia article, but instead are left being able to say nothing about him besides acknowledging that he exists, then we just shouldn't have an article about him at all. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 02:05, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When you say he used OTRS, did he ask for his entry to be deleted, or specifically ask for removal of the fact of his sexuality, or something else? It's surely possible to mention that someone wrote on gay themes without specifically referring to their sexuality? Since he's published by Bold Stroke Books, slogan "Quality and diversity in LGBTQ literature"[1], I don't see how he can seriously argue against mention of homosexuality. Colapeninsula (talk) 09:46, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the exact substance of the entire OTRS request, because OTRS doesn't publicize that information — I can only judge the situation based on what happened at the edit level. What got removed, with an OTRS ticket number in the edit summary, was the (properly sourced) acknowledgement of his outness about his sexuality. Bearcat (talk) 15:11, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:11, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:11, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Stephen Henighan discusses his work. here:[2]. I take that as prima facie evidence of notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:05, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Bearcat Chap has an inconveniently common name. However, the article merely needs someone to add the book reviews and discussion of his work by literary critics. Reviews and discussions are pretty easy to locate. I'm not saying that you are required to write and source a literary analysis of this writer, only that you might want to rethink the AFD and just leave the article tagged for sourcing until some fan or grad student comes along and writes a proper article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:24, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with E.M.Gregory, but I think there should be more sources on the article. Weegeerunner (talk) 16:23, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:21, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:43, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: not that bad. 333 -blue 09:46, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete So far the National Post article is the only one that seems to support notability. His books have had zero reviews in Booklist. Only one was reviewed in Kirkus (and it was not a glowing review). His books are found on Worldcat with library holdings between 30-90 copies (that's not at all a high number). Unless E.M.G. can find more reviews, I just don't think he makes the grade. I'll check back. LaMona (talk) 22:13, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I added a few sources to the page. User:Bearcat is awfully good at spotting articles that should be deleted, but he seems not to have run searches on older Canadian newspapers. This guy had his moment, and it was covered in the major Canadian papers back around 1990. A search on "God's Peculiar Care" on Proquest newspapers turned up 30 book reviews and profiles, from all the major Canadian newspapers. Of course, if you run a search on his name in books, you turn up a good many sources about his life and work in literary sources devoted to gay writing. I did not cite these. This article should NOT be deleted by any editor who has not run a Proquest or similar searches. It is a KEEP. If you are tempted to delete it, or even to close it as undecided, flag me and I'll spend a couple of hours sourcing the page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:39, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Except that I most certainly did run a database search, and my reasoned judgement was that absent any specific achievement that would actually satisfy WP:AUTHOR (e.g. he never won a notable literary award, his books are no longer widely held anywhere, and on and so forth), and stripped of the ability to say anything about the strongest reason why he should actually have a Wikipedia article, the sources didn't actually support any substantive claim of notability beyond "writer who exists". You're free to have a different opinion about how much substance the sources you added actually offer — I'm still not seeing anything in the article that would constitute an WP:AUTHOR pass, but you're free to vary your mileage — but kindly don't imply that I didn't even attempt to source the article up properly. There's just no meat left once we exclude the sources that are covering him in the context of the gay issue, which isn't the same thing. Bearcat (talk) 00:53, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bearcat, I apologize. I really thought you must have missed the stuff from the early years. I may be keying in different search parameters, and, therefore, seeing different sources. I am seeing rave reviews for his early novels and short story collections, profiles in major papers like the Globe and Mail, and at lease on major prize. You are, of course, correct that this sort of material is overwhelmed by the verboten material. And I have not addressed the fact that in the the Globe and Mail interview he seems to assert that he more or less made up much of the information he gave to interviewers when his first novel was being promoted (for example, the assertion that he supported himself in Mexico as a prostitute). However, I think that there is more than enough to establish notability as a hot young writer on the Canadian literary scene c. 1990.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:17, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to withdraw this. As I've already discussed with E.M.Gregory, I think I've figured out a way forward, by which we don't have to just avoid all the strongest sources anymore. Bearcat (talk) 02:07, 15 June 2015 (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.