Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/H.C. Matthew Sim

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 no consensus, defaulting to keep - CrazyRussian talk/email 23:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] H.C. Matthew Sim

Diplomat and author. Looks like an autobiography so I would like a notability check. -- RHaworth 03:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep meets WP:BIO due to multiple reviews on his work. (I'm responsible for the de-prod and de-speedy, but not the article creator.) zephyr2k 03:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This is more like an "about the author" blurb than an encyclopaedia article. Just being co-author of books that have been reviewed. The article cites no sources and so none of the claims are verified. Thryduulf 23:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete Hes abviously an author, which gives him notability, but its correct that it looks like an autobiography and not an encyclopedia article. I say delete if it cant be rewritten. Aspensti 17:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Konst.able 07:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as vanity, seems to fail WP:BIO --Storkk 12:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC). Is wholly unverifiable, barely meets WP:BIO (as a "co-author" - whose contributions to "his" works are of unknown weight), it is doubtful it will ever grow beyond a stub, as long as we try to keep it verifiable. --Storkk 12:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, unverified (auto)bio. Deizio talk 15:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, to quote User:Deiz, 'unverified (auto)bio.' Benn Newman 21:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC) Keep Benn Newman 20:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep wake up people: "Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work" are noteworthy enough for articles on them, quote taken from WP:BIO. An article needing cleanup is not the same thing as an article needing deletion. Am I missing something here? Noroton 01:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment: It no longer needs major cleanup. I've done it. More sourcing would be better, but as it stands now it's a short, stubbish article with more references than most Wikipedia articles.Noroton 02:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• keep per Noroton.

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.