Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lee Hill

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 of the debate was no consensus, defaults to keep. - Liberatore(T) 15:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lee Hill

I cannot find him from googling the name (at least not on first page. The said biography is #2,135,228 on Amazon. NN? James Kendall [talk] 13:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete there is no claim to notability in this article at all. --Deville (Talk) 14:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn. --Terence Ong 15:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Obvious Keep, author of notable/substantial biography of notable figure. Extensively reviewed when it first appeared, publication treated as an event, for example, by Time magazine [1]. Article shouldn't be deleted simply because nominator didn't do a decent Google search; there'd be no issue if he'd done a well-formed one [2]. Monicasdude 15:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Firstly, there is no need to be rude. Seeing your user talk space, it seems like it is a common tactic of yours. Secondly, just because a book has been reviewed by Time or indeed the New York Times [3] does not make it notable. As I said, it is hardly a well-selling book.

On the subject of searching, I meant that if one googles 'lee hill' he is not a top search. I'm still not sure I'm convinced of his inclusion, when his books aren't high sellers. That said, I'll leave it to Wikipedians to decide. I wasn't sure that the guy was notable, so I stand by my original decision. James Kendall [talk] 21:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• • • Actually, if you google "Lee Hill," he shows up in the eighth listing on the first page. Monicasdude 05:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Convinced by 2nd source/reference provided by Monicasdude - even if it has been provided in a rather harsh manner.... ahem! Marcus22 20:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Wrote an import bio of Terry Southern hence exactly the type of page we want here. Thanks to Monicasdude for those references. -- JJay 20:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• So the argument is that writing a biography of someone famous a priori makes the biographer notable. Interesting logic there: a new form of justification for reflected glory. Hint for Monicasdude: Time and The New York Times printed reviews of the book because of its subject, not its writer. For the moment, delete: I notice the other highpoint of Hill's career is editing a college radio station program guide. Whoopee! --Calton | Talk 00:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • No, the argument is that the creator of a notable work is also notable. And it really doesn't matter why a book is prominently reviewed in major publications (not that your claims are well-founded); the reviews/coverage amount to presumptive evidence of notability. Most (not all, but most) writers who satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements do so because their work satisfies Wikipedia's notability requirements. Monicasdude 05:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Calton. Eusebeus 13:52, 29 March 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.