Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan Davidson (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 delete, but in the interests of not biting the newbies, I'm going to just userfy so that Bee Redding can continue to gather sources and improve the article. Mangojuice^talk 13:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alan Davidson (author)

Alan Davidson (author) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non-notable author as far as I can tell, article is practically an advertisement/back of the book author's bio (ie. no NPOV). Besides simply being published, no notability is asserted (btw I don't think simply being published is anywhere near enough for notability). A google search doesn't turn up much on this guy (mostly a food author by the same name). This article was previously deleted by CSD (see [1], but there may be some difference in them. Also, again I'm having a hard time telling, but this may have been the subject of a previous AfD at [2] Cquan (talk, AMA Desk) 17:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

• Weak delete. He does seem to have gained attention for his lawsuit claiming that the film Chicken Run plagiarised one of his books, but that could be treated briefly in the film's article. The article doesn't indicate that reliable independent sources exist allowing a biographical article to be written about the man. EALacey 21:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
• I am the writer of this article having provided the authentication requested, all independently verifiable through library databases etc. First of all I must apologise for having accepted the apparent invitation at the head of this page to edit existing comments, [it seemed a strange idea at the time!]. I now find that I can add my own separately, something not made clear. I'm bewildered by Cquan's dismissive comments, although as a US biochemist he may be unaware of the acutely competitive nature of the UK children's books market, where for an author to sustain a career for nearly 30 years is in itself 'notable'. EALacey mentions the author's plagiarism suit against a famous film [hardly the kind of 'attention' an author would willingly seek presumably]. On reflection, the studio's PR people would be bound to cut any reference, however brief, from their own article so this is perhaps not a realistic suggestion. I'm willing to accept guidance from a moderator as to how else my article should be improved but will not have access to a computer for several days after 3 May. Please advise. 11:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)Bee Redding
  • Comment. Thank you for the comments. I don't doubt the accuracy of the article, and I agree that having multiple children's books published over a long period is certainly an achievement. However, "notability" in Wikipedia terms means something more specific: a subject generally has to have received coverage from independent published sources to qualify as "notable". See WP:BIO for how this applies to articles about people. A guideline suggested at that page for classifying a writer as notable is that "The person has created a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." For example, if any newspapers or literary magazines have devoted articles to Alan Davidson, or published substantial reviews of his works, those could be used to establish notability. EALacey 12:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. From the content of the article, I couldn't tell if he was notable or not and I would be inclined to think not. It's true, I'm not aware of the environment in the UK, but honestly, I doubt there's anything special about the competitive nature as opposed to other industries/fields. Everything is hard, that's just life. That being said, I'm more than happy to have the article stay if proper notability is asserted and backed up on the article. This poor US biochemist is willing to admit his mistake then...oh wait, I'm not a biochemist...anyway, show notability. -Cquan (talk, AMA Desk) 18:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. I apologise to Cquan, he's listed as a US biomedical engineer, not biochemist, which shows I'm as vague about his field as he is perhaps about mine. I have a large family of keen readers and a lifelong interest and some in depth knowledge of British children's fiction and its authors, many of them excellent but unsung which for me was the whole point of starting to write them up on Wikipedia. Naturally I'm beginning to have second thoughts. Wiki seems to be operating more like a traditional encyclopaedia where all subjects must be already 'notable' i.e. famous or well-known [and info about them readily accessible elsewhere anyway!] The bar seems to be being raised rather high if, as now appears, 'stubs' are to disappear. What a shame. I'm grateful nonetheless to EALacey for his constructive comments and interest. I've seen many thoughtful reviews of Alan Davidson's work over the years, mainly in little specialist journals, very ocassionally in e.g. The Guardian. Times Ed. Supplement. The J K Rowling/Philip Pullman phenomenon has raised the profile of children's books but for years they received pitiable coverage in the UK national press and still get nothing like the adult books. If I locate anything on the lines you mention, I could add it to the article later this month when I'll have computer access again.If the moderators decide in the meantime to delete the article, that is a matter for them. Bee Redding 14:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Just in case I was unclear, I was joking around:-P. But thanks for the thought anyway:-D. In any case, I don't think the bar is set THAT high. At this point, I'd be satisfied with a single line with a single source to assert notability (which isn't asking much). The guideline is also not about popularity or fame. I like to think it's a good way to keep people from shamelessly promoting things, i.e. using Wikipedia to create notability. But honestly, if he has been writing that long and is popular, there must be at least ONE article about him somewhere and that'll be enough. -Cquan (talk, AMA Desk) 16:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Cquan's right, of course, as I've found from a quick internet scan under other headings. Looks as though I can add quite a lot when I get back [that's if it hasn't been deleted by then]. I did a minor edit yesterday. To clarify: being elected to the Executive of English PEN [Poets, Editors and Novelists] is considered quite an honour for an author this side of the pond, although I appreciate that's not the issue at the moment. I'll be able to check in again around 12th May - am now on my way.
• Delete - for now, per WP:BIO - creative professionals criteria. Though in actuality, the difficulty may lie in being able to locate and seperate sources/references that are referring to Alan Davidson (author) and not Alan Davidson (food writer). Not trying to ruin anyone's work here, but if user Bee Redding wishes, I'd suggest a rough article in the user namespace to firmly establish notability first. Luke! 10:37, 8 May 2007 (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.