Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ken Shakin

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 Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 15:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ken Shakin

Ken Shakin (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Shakin is the author of 3 books. A thorough Google search turns up many stores selling them and a few reviews, though most of the reviews seem to be copies of one another. I can't find any references about the man himself, why he's notable, or even biographical information except from his personal site and that of his publisher. SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 14:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• Question Could you please link to the reviews either here or on the article itself so people can judge them without having to replicate the search and sift through the many blogs and so on. DGG (talk) 16:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Sure. There aren't really that many, and they all seem to be copies of eachother. I found them through [1]. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 17:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. He's referenced in a number of print sources, including references to his critical standing in gay literature. Here are some examples [2]. With three published books to his name and independent critical standing, he merits an article. Qworty 18:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete None the the items listed hold. Some of them are simply his other books. The others are books from the same publisher that simply list one of his books as also being by the same publisher. The only "review" was a one sentence note on the books web site from an un-named contributor. Published reviews in 3rd party reliable sources are needed to prove notability , and I see none at all. I checked Google, and find only 900 ghits total, which does not imply that there is a widespread internet interest either--things popular in the blogosphere usually get 100 times that number. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
• Delete none of the asserted sources are reliable and independent (and for that matter few are either). Eluchil404 05:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. The article itself has no reliable sources. So far no-one has found any reviews in the mainstream press. EdJohnston 03:58, 3 August 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.