Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Troy Blacklaws

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. Singularity 03:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Troy Blacklaws

Troy Blacklaws (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

This man is not related to any wikipedia article. Are they trying to play a fool? Hellboy2hell (talk) 10:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete; doesn't seem a significant author (the only claim to importance given in the article) Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 10:35, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Man, this really is too much. Sometimes I think some of the people writing entries are working from a cheat sheet called "How to Write a Lousy Article." True, the fact that this is a lousy article is not reason enough to delete it. But the fact that this author is completely non-notable is more than reason enough to get rid of it. I love what that tiny South African paper said about his work: "His language is as rich as the sea smell which is lodged in Douglas' being." I think I'd like to delete that article too . . . Qworty (talk) 11:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Karoo Boy was reviewd in the New York Times). Pburka (talk) 12:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as a copyvio of [1], but with no predjudice to recreation if the infringing material is removed. Regarding the notability of the author I'm still undecided, but I think an article on his novel Karoo Boy would easily pass WP:BK - see e.g. [2], [3], [4]. Scog (talk) 12:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Changing my vote to keep: the rewrite by Bilby has removed the copyvio problems, and I think has also done enough to establish notability. Scog (talk) 07:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:41, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment- being an orphaned article is not a sufficient reason for nominating something for deletion. Grutness...wha? 02:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep As noted by Scog the article needed a rewrite to fix the copyvio problems, which I've done. I've also added the New York Times review mentioned by Pburka, reviews from The Village Voice and San Francisco Chronicle from Scog, and one from The Sydney Morning Herald. He's clearly not a major author, but hopefully the changes will help to establish notability. - Bilby (talk) 05:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notability is clearly demonstrated by the sources cited. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Although a short article, it does contain sufficient references. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'd say that there's sufficient sources there to establish notability. I'm sure that editors should be able to expand the article in future. -- Sabre (talk) 18:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep It's a good idea to check the subject oneself, not just the article, before commenting that there is no possible importance. DGG (talk) 22:55, 26 May 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.