Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Somers

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. - Mailer Diablo 15:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jeff Somers

Non-notable author. Leibniz 13:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Small press, zines, and short stories, and that's it. Uh uh, not enough. --Calton | Talk 13:39, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. per nom --Bill.matthews 15:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. As cited in the article, the author's first novel was (sorta favorably) in the Sunday New York Times Book Review, indicating he is already more noted that 99.999% of the American writers out there. When Calton gave a list of non-notable points and said "that's it" he wasn't telling the truth. Does Calton have a grudge against Jeff, or is he just malicious? You make the call. VivianDarkbloom 19:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• What IS your major malfunction, Bucky? Small press, zines, and short stories WERE what was listed, so NOTHING I said was untrue, your paranoia notwithstanding. CLAIMS of a notice in the NYTBR means nothing without either actual citation or what the notice actually WAS -- Bylined review? One graf in the "New in Paperback" column? Passing mention in a larger article? Creative Arts Book Company IS a small press -- and I ought to know, since it was based in the town I lived in -- and its reputation has dropped markedly since my last acquaintance, since a little reasearch shows that the SFWA notes that it seemed to have morphed into some sort of vanity press [1] by 2001, further weakening the case against this guy.
• By the way, if you have some sort of point to make, don't disrupt Wikipedia to do so with your mass removal of "prod" tags with the oddball reasoning of "because I don't trust the prodder or his judgement". --Calton | Talk 00:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Delete If the NYT Book Review claim were sourced to an independent reliable source, I'd consider it significant evidence of notability. But it isn't sourced, and the article isn't sourced. So I believe that deletion is appropriate. GRBerry 21:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

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.