Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lawrence Person

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 delete. Notability is not inherited. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence Person

Non-notable person; Google News Archive Search solely shows the website on which he reviews films and no secondary reliable sources with significant coverage of the person himself. —Erik (talk • contrib) 05:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Article was proposed for deletion, but the IP who removed the template (and also spammed the person's LocusMag.com review at Watchmen), saying in the edit summary, "11,000+ Google hits for author, including 79 hits within Wikipedia itself." This ignores the threshold of significant coverage for notability purposes and also the fact that not all the hits belong to the author, and that intra-Wikipedia hits do not count. —Erik (talk • contrib) 05:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your own reasoning is flawed too. While googlehits themselves do not mean something is notable and while wikipedia hits aren't reliable sources, the fact hits exist and the person is mentioned in Wikipedia can indicate they're notable. You say there's no significant coverage, but what is significant is different to different people. It would be more productive to discuss what you found and why you didn't consider it significant. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N is clear about significant coverage: "Sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content." While he may have written for publications considered notable, this does not by extent make him notable. If the publications are notable, his work can be cited in whatever articles the works address. The writers of content in reliable sources are not always themselves notable. With that said, here are the hits: Google Archive News Search with LocusMag.com (where he reviews) and Google Archive News Search without LocusMag.com. Furthermore, the regular Google hits are unreliable with some seemingly extracted from Wikipedia itself: 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. It seems that Nova Express (fanzine) may have its claim to notability, so Lawrence Person can be mentioned there as a key editor; there is no significant coverage from reliable sources that give him his own article. Additionally, judging from the intra-Wikipedia links such as his review at Clover (creature), I highly doubt that people with no conflict of interests would have cited him. More likely that there is an interest in soliciting his opinions throughout Wikipedia; will have to clear out these COI contributions. —Erik (talk • contrib) 13:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete That the article has survived since 2002 is an achievement, however Mr Person does not meet the threshold for an article. I'm sure this could have survived for another seven years had some editors not drawn attention to this article by linking it to an article with a couple of thousand watchers. Darrenhusted (talk) 09:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question So we consider critics from notable magazines reliable sources, but don't consider them potentially notable as a result? - Mgm|^(talk) 09:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, they still have to pass WP:BIO. Drawn Some (talk) 10:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In addition notability is not inherited. You may be editor for the New York Times, and the New York Times is notable, this does not make you notable. The sea of bluelinks on the article seems to be attempting to show notability by inheritance. Darrenhusted (talk) 13:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

actually, many or perhaps most of us think that it does depend somewhat upon the position. If the publication is notable enough at a national level, it does count--but then there generally will be references. Additionally If it were an academic peer reviewed journal , for example, it would meet WP:PROF as showing the notability in the subject as long as it could be verified. In this case, the most likely way of demonstrating notability would be as an author, if his pieces were reprinted in anthologies of criticism, or something of the sort. DGG (talk) 23:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: Looking around the internet, Lawrence Person would seem to have a number of criteria that meet the notability threshold:
- He’s a published science fiction writer, with work in Asimov’s and Analog (two of the top magazines in the field)
- As a literary critic, “Notes Toward a Postcyberpunk Manifesto” seems to have been referenced in a number of places, inside Wikipedia and without.
- His movie reviews are indexed in the Internet Movie Database. (For example, [[1]]
- He edits a Hugo-nominated fanzine that lots of professional writers seem to have written for.

These would seem to be notable accomplishments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.114.141.234 (talk) 01:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no notability established Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 02:24, 27 May 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.