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. Since the issue is notability, and all seem to have reviewed the sources, we can go with the headcount: Five editors believe the sources are not sufficient to establish notability, while one aggregate editor believes they are (counting weak keep as 0.5 and very weak keep as 0.25). No objection to recreation if new substantial coverage is found. Sandstein 06:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kirk Aanes[edit]

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

non-notable minor playwright, has written a couple of plays for TV. Incoherent article. Very few google hits. Does not seem to pass notability guidelines Animatronic Fruit Loop (talk) 20:51, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article does not assert notability. The external links are all trivial coverage, and I could not find any significant coverage searching google. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 22:49, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Of two of the links, somebody's resume says that the worked on the play by Mr. Aanes, and somebody else mentioned someone else who worked the play by Mr. Aanes. As he is not the subject of these (beyond that he's cited as the author of said play), these can't work. The others are NY Times links for searches (which don't mean much), and then his iMDB listing - which is not a reliable source. Beyond that, there's nothing for this guy. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per A7 (article does not assert notability) and A3 (no content). Failing speedy delete, it also does not meet WP:N - the article does not establish the notability of its subject. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - google books shows some mentioning in reliable sources. New York Magazine thought he was notable enough to write about a subject he wrote.... Himalayan 11:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Commment - that may be so, but the information's not in the article. We can only assess on what's in the article, not what might possibly be in the article in the future. Currently there's no claim of notability. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- @ Himalayan, looking at the books, they are either not about Kirk Aanes or they are trivial coverage of Aanes, they do not establish notability. @ DustFormsWords, there is no criteria that the sources must be in the article to evaluate them. If someone brings up sources that establish notability at the AFD, we should evaluate them to see if they do establish notability even if they are not put into the article. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 00:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak Keep May just meet requirements for creative writer: One play, The Book of Lamb is included in an anthology The Best Plays of 1993-1994‎; another, "Love thy Neighbor" was made into a film. [1] But the New York listing is just a listing & not significant for notability - It's an off-off-Broadway production, and the magazine includes all productions in NYC. The other refs are also just listings. DGG ( talk ) 12:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll go along with DGG on this one, too - very weak keep. I think off-off Broadway is right on the edge of notability. Bearian (talk) 15:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep per DGG, because I cannot find evidence of notability beyond that one anthology and one adaptation. If we think that's enough, than the article can stand, but this cat better get to writing a bestseller. Drmies (talk) 23:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep unreferenced does not mean unreferencable. We can absolutely consider sources that have not yet been added to the article. As DGG said, it's borderline but I think it may pass. StarM 03:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Off-off Broadway might make the cut, but I'd want to see more OOB plays, reviews, etc... - Vartanza (talk) 19:30, 3 October 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.