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 the result was keep WP:SNOW‎ . (non-admin closure) Bruxton (talk) 02:36, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher W. Shaw[edit]

Christopher W. Shaw (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable. There is no coverage about the subject other than being a PhD holder and author of three books. The books have reviews but no articles nor mentions on enwiki. I undeleted the page while it was in draftspace. I would have moved it back to draft for possible expansion, but not doing it per WP:DRAFTOBJECT. Jay 💬 10:35, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Jay 💬 10:35, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment How is “The books have reviews but no articles nor mentions on enwiki” a valid reason for deletion? I think the extensive reviews could justify an article for at least one of his books. Lack of mention demonstrates a gap in coverage on Wikipedia, not non-notability. Thriley (talk) 13:09, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Thriley (talk) 14:48, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The books have reviews but no articles nor mentions on enwiki. This is a bizarre statement to try and claim non-notability by. Why would something have to be mentioned elsewhere on Wikipedia or already have an article here in order to qualify for notability? Regardless, the reason why the reviews matter is because that's why the subject meets WP:NAUTHOR #3. And the article can be easily expanded with those reviews to discuss his career in making those books and why. Silverseren^C 17:17, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, possibly even speedy keep for the straightforward WP:AUTHOR pass and the lack of an accurate deletion rationale. The article, as nominated, had more than sufficient reviews already cited to indicate that WP:AUTHOR was satisfied. The no coverage about the subject claim is either irrelevant or erroneous, take your pick: the coverage that matters for an author is coverage of their writing, not about their favorite ice-cream flavor. XOR'easter (talk) 21:26, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The book reviews support that WP:NAUTHOR #3 is met. MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:57, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep reason for nomination is unclear, and he appears to meet N:AUTHOR to my reading. Star Mississippi 21:04, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep notable author. the article needs organization. Lightburst (talk) 13:42, 17 April 2023 (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.