Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Cook (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. Consensus that the subject meets WP:NAUTHOR exists. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 06:11, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Cook (author) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

There does not appear to be significant coverage of this individual in secondary sources. Since this is a BLP, WP:NBIO applies. Within WP:NBIO, WP:BASIC and WP:AUTHOR seem to be most pertinent.

WP:BASIC states that

WP:AUTHOR states that authors are notable when any of the following are met:

1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.
2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique.
3. The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
4. The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

As it pertains to WP:BASIC, it does not appear that the author meets the criteria. The author's page does not include any sources that provide significant, in-depth coverage into the author that are independent from one another. I have been unable to find these sources, despite extensive searching.

Likewise, the author does not appear to satisfy the criteria laid out in WP:AUTHOR; I can't find any reliable sources indicating that he is a particularly important figure per peers, that he has created significant new techniques or concepts, that his work constitutes a well-known body of collective work, or that his works have been significant on their own.

Prior to making this AfD, I had proposed this item for deletion. The proposal was removed after an editor added two sources, though these sources don't provide any real in-depth coverage of either Cook himself or his books.

For the reasons above, I am nominating this article for deletion. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 23:58, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 23:58, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per... well, damn, everything you said. AdoTang (talk) 18:36, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete I'm digging up some sources like coverage from Arizona PBS and discussion of a book on Arizona PBS. Unfortunately he's a Sci-Fi author with most of his work pre-internet so we're unlikely to find reviews in a lot of the more modern sources. I'm at weak delete because I just don't have access to archives of the older magazines that may have written the necessary reviews to establish his notability. There's one such source in the article already, and I'd bet there's more. Unfortunately if I can't find them I can't use them to judge notability. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:16, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm convinced by David Eppstein's sources. Keep. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:00, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:21, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• keep it seems at least one of his books got some reviews and discussion Tintagel (novel) with three reviews listed in different magazines so that seems like sufficient coverage to pass WP:GNG. It is not much but I think he passes the bar. Also it seems like his work is even conserved by ASU which for me settles the case. --hroest 13:30, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I don't see where he meets WP:AUTHOR, Yes he wrote books that were published by notable publishers, some of those books have some reviews and minor mentions. user:hroest mentions book reviews in magazines, but there is no evidence that those are independent, are the magazines owned or directed by the publisher of the books, who want to sell the books? As for being put in an archive, Project Gutenberg has lots of books in their archive, that does not make the authors notable at Wikipedia. No objections to recreation, if notability can be shown, but I don't see that happening. Jeepday (talk) 16:12, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Locus lists two published reviews of his books The Engines of Dawn and Fortress on the Sun [1]. ISFDB lists four reviews and a Locus best first novel award for Tintagel [2], one review for The Alejandra Variations [3], six reviews for Duende Meadow [4], one for Halo [5], three for On the Rim of the Mandala [6], two for Fortress on the Sun (including the Locus one) [7], and three for The Engines of Dawn (including Locus) [8], Most or all of the reviews themselves are not online, I think, but that should not be relevant; they are independent of the author and reliably published in wide-circulation genre magazines. I think that's more than enough for WP:AUTHOR. The nomination smacks of WP:RECENTISM: he was a notable SF author in the 1980s, and although sources from the 1980s can be hard to access (too old to be easily found on line, too new to be scanned and archived) once notable always notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:52, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, just because an author's books are wikinotable (requiring multiple reviews), doesnt necessarily mean that the author is, as WP:NAUTHOR (no. 3) requires works to not just be reviewed but also to be "significant or well-known", none of them are held by 3figure+ libraries, most are held in under 50 libraries, the highest are is Duende Meadow (64 libraries), and The Alejandra variations (55 libraries), it does look funny, though, when there are/could be wikiarticles on 2 or more (even 5?:)) books but not one on the author. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:30, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work ...(multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. Wouldn't multiple reviews in different publications be the multiple independent periodical reviews? The reviews and articles themselves are what inform us that the body of work is well known. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:48, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Isnt that common sense: if an author has written multiple books that would pass the notability test, wouldnt it make sense to have an article about the author? Also this is exactly what NAUTHOR #3, addresses exactly this case "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work." -- that says exactly if the author has created notable work, as demonstrated through multiple reviews for each book, then the author is notable? --hroest 20:20, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

if this was the case, (work(s) have received multiple reviews so author is notable), than the first sentence would be redundant and not required, but with Cook this is now a moot point due to the cogent reasoning given by SouthernNights below. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:24, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This author has published 8 novels with major publishing companies along with stories in a large number of major SF/F magazines and one of his novels was a finalist for the Locus Award. In addition, the Encyclopedia of Science Fiction feels the author is notable enough to warrant his own entry. Cook is notable per the guidelines for authors because he "won significant critical attention" back in the day. I have added a number of citations to the article to back up this notability, but just because the reviews and coverage of his work mostly predate the internet era does not take away from that notability.--SouthernNights (talk) 19:58, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A notable author who has published a good number of novels and has received significant coverage. Northern Escapee (talk) 10:09, 11 April 2021 (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.