Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Bird

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. John254 00:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] David Bird

David Bird (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Article does not assert notability of subject to satisfy the requirements of WP:BIO. No major awards, press coverage or significant impact on the genre in which he writes (beyond being a prolific writer). Ozgod (talk) 03:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Strong keep. Being the "world's most prolific bridge writer" is an assertion of notability in itself, and with 97 books, it's clear that he's made a significant impact on the genre. Tons of hits in the NYT and elsewhere: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. I'm sure many more can be found. Jfire (talk) 16:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Bird is a highly successful writer of bridge books as well as writing a column for a UK national newspaper. JH (talk page) 17:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong keep - hugely notable in the bridge world as an author. Described by Alan Truscott in the NYT as "long one of the world's top bridge writers". (I've added it to the page.) BlueValour (talk) 02:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, looks notable to me.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 20:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, I can't stand the game and even I've heard of him. Definitely notable. Pete Fenelon (talk) 02:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - nominator, though sincere, is apparently unable to clearly judge "notability"; likely all their nominations should be removed from AFD just in case - David Gerard (talk) 13:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Neutral – definitely not notable as a player, but prolific indeed as a writer, and popular. Not many of his books break new ground, but that could be said of many authors. Contrary to the previous entry, I think the question raised is appropriate: personally, I don't think I would call this article a biography. Hmmm... Macdonald-ross (talk) 15:45, 10 March 2008 (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.