Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Henry (novelist)

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--Ymblanter (talk) 10:39, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Henry (novelist)

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

Fails WP:AUTHOR. Having some published work does not guarantee notability. LuckyLouie (talk) 22:56, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The earlier revision really was awful and because of that, I wasn't really expecting to find anything. It's kind of unfortunate in that it's kind of normal to have an extremely puffy, non-NPOV page for someone that has never received coverage anywhere. However he has received reviews from SF Signal, SF Site, and many different trade reviews. If it were just the trade reviews I'd be less inclined to really vote "keep", but there are the other reviews to help push it forward. I do think that if this is kept we will likely need to keep an eye on it to ensure that it doesn't get reverted back to its promotional state or have similar information added. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:26, 22 May 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, Mz7 (talk) 18:41, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:AUTHOR per work by User:Tokyogirl79. -- GreenC 23:55, 2 June 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.