Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lars Walker

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. slakr^\ talk / 04:30, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lars Walker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There's no indication that Walker meets the standards of notability for authors. All sources given in the article, and all others I've been able to find, are either the websites of organizations he's affiliated with, such as his American Spectator author profile, or interviews with Walker, usually on blogs or other publications of dubious reliability, not independent coverage of him. Huon (talk) 02:20, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

<sarc>Of course not; Wikipedia is for porn now, not books. Pornstars survive their AfDs because the smut industry games Wikipedia's own "PORNBIO" notability rules, whereas authors are too busy writing to find the time to bestow each other with bogus, incestuous awards. Not that the press pays attention to anything except politics and Hollywood anymore anyway, and all the "content creators" are URL-blocked as references.</sarc>

Your call, gentlemen. Just have the common decency to throw some lilies on the casket before shoveling the dirt.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 04:28, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful, the award requirement is not just an odd criterium of notability for pornographic actors, it is a basic criterium applied for ANY biography, including authors (see WP:ANYBIO#1), with the only difference that in porn you have to win an award, in the other professional categories a couple nominations could be enough. There are dozens/maybe hundreds of writers kept at AFD on the basis of their accolades. Cavarrone 07:21, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The smut industry knows what Wikipedia's notability requirements are, so they game your system to manufacture "award winners". That many authors survive AfD does not distract me from the (as I see it) problem of Wikipedia's ongoing elimination of obscure meritorious knowledge while promoting even more obscure meretricious knowledge (see my larger comment below). For every author who is submitted to and survives AfD, there are probably dozens of others in the encyclopedia whose articles are less fleshed out, and which I now do not dare edit for fear of attracting attention to them.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 21:28, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Leaning delete - Seriously, I've not clue on this one. He seems to fail WP:AUTHOR sadly. I have to agree with the sentiment of Раціональне but as much as I think thats the case (we seriously have way to many pornbios) that's not what the policies say presently. JT_dale^Talk~ 04:36, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Sadly delete or userfy. I apprecciate the passion of the good faith article's creator, but apparently this fantasy novelist does not meet any notability guideline (WP:GNG, WP:AUTHOR, WP:ANYBIO or other suitable SNGs). I sympathize with him because I think every article creator has a couple of favorite topics that sadly seems to be non notable enough for inclusion. I suggest him to work a bit on their articles in the sandbox before moving them in the mainspace, and to eventually ask a preliminary opinion to a more experienced editor, at least until guidelines and policies will not be crystal clear to him. I worked a lot in the sandbox before moving articles on obviously notable novelists such as Ercole Patti and Guido da Verona in the mainspace, and they are still stub/start class articles! Cavarrone 07:21, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Gentlemen, if it makes you "sad" (so far, we have three "sad" people, if I may count myself among them, of the four who've weighed in, making the tally: everyone here so far, aside from the submitter, is sad), don't do it. This place has enough bureaucracy already that articles more noteworthy than this one are in perilous straits as well.

What are we here for? The purpose of the project is to accumulate meritorious knowledge. If a writer with 7 published novels, 20 articles at an influential magazine with a ninety year pedigree, 97 other columns at an institution which should have an article here (but which presently doesn't), an interview by a notable in-his-field with his own Wikipedia entry, and who has been cited as an authority in other Wikipedia articles, still lacks notability - while any interchangeable silicon bimbo who wins a prize for spreading her legs automatically has it (thereby demonstrating the difference between meritorious and meretricious knowledge) - then the problem isn't that the writer is insufficiently accomplished, it's with the encyclopedia. (I do not consider the fact that a Google scan reveals no "dead-tree" reviews of Walker's work as indicative of insufficient accomplishment on his part because virtually all reviewing of sub-genre topics has shifted to the internet, i.e., "blogs, over the last decade and a half. Being name-dropped in a three-inch-thick New York Times is something authors in the 1970s would have reliably expected, but not any more.) How many contemporary Viking historians are there with a greater command of the subject than Lars Walker? In fact, I can't recall any at all, living or dead. I'm sure they exist; it's just that they've written even less than Walker.

Every hour I spend here, I encounter multiple (usually older) articles of obscure personages (often authors) with less accomplishment than the one at hand, whose articles simply would not survive AfD today - and I make the decision, every time, to not submit an AfD. And I don't dare edit their articles either, because someone watching my contributions might notice. Reflect on that for a moment: a situation exists in which an interested editor refrains from improving an article for fear that it will be deleted.

A final word from notability criteria: "Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included..." In short, it's not iron-clad. You get to "vote your conscience".--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 13:11, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - If he's important as a historian, then that should be supportable through citations by other historians (and I'm not saying those aren't there, they just haven't been shown.) If he's important as a novelist, there should be appropriate coverage. The claim "but internet!" skips over the fact that he's been a published novelist since 1987, well before the Internet replaced everything else. Not everyone who works for American Spectator should be automatically notable. The "7 published novels" claim is particularly weak one these days, as publishing a novel doesn't require getting by any gatekeepers - as with his latest novels, which appear to be just self-published ebooks. And the "but porn" argument is just sad - even if we were to accept that the porn bio requirements are insufficient (I've not particularly looked at them), saying that we must therefor lower our standards elsewhere seems to be an aggressive rush to the bottom, rather than seeking to be our best. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:21, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1987 was a typo; his first book was published in '97.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 07:40, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (parlez) @ 20:45, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (drawl) @ 20:45, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (pitch) @ 20:45, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:N. A good many people do good work everyday. Nobody knows who they are and nobody should care. Belle Knox, if she's good at anything, is good at getting attention and that's what encyclopedias write about. Your complaint should be against the secondary source literary critics that should give this guy more press. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:34, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment People "good at getting attention" are what celebrity gossip blogs write about (fueling an incestuous cycle); Wikipedia should hold itself to a higher standard. My complaint isn't with the sources or even with girls like Knox. It's with what the Project here has apparently decided regarding what knowledge it considers worth keeping. I would argue that the purpose of Wikipedia is better served by having articles on more obscure persons of merit (and the fewer sources around them the better). The interested reader has no shortage of salacious sites fawning over Knox, but where will he go to find out more about who wrote Hailstone Mountain? Why does Wikipedia need to be a spigot of popular tripe? -That's what the rest of the internet is for. Even so, I wouldn't care if the place carried articles on porno "actresses" so long as the obscure author articles were retained; it's only when the encyclopedia retains the smut and deletes the authors that I wonder if the time I spend contributing is well-spent, because a "policy of cheapening" can only result in the marginalization of your reputation.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 00:19, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• If you would like to rework the notability guidelines, this AFD discussion is not the effective place to do so. As for "where will he go to find out more about who wrote Hailstone Mountain?", since the only place this is being sold is Amazon, presumably he knows about that site and its About The Author Page... and even that will direct them to the author's website. Wikipedia is not meant to be every possible reference. This is not the white pages, it need not include everyone. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:56, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Do not seek revenge starting in a few minutes a bunch of AfD against pornographic topics which seems incidentally almost all notable [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. This behaviour is considered disruptive and will not help your cause. Replying to one of your messages above, we don't have meritorious VS meretricious in Wikipedia, just notable VS unnotable. Ethical judgments and personal bias are not supposed to have a weight in our encyclopedia. Cavarrone 07:08, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I've added several more references, including one from a long-existent weekly newspaper focused on Norwegian-American topics, thereby satisfying, albeit minimally, RS source requirements. (The other refs, while less RS, are IMO informative. Of the dozens encountered while searching, I've chosen the most authoritative and professional in tone and appearance.)--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 02:54, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Considering his academic accomplishments, Paul Mullins appears to merit an article. (And having your "take" favorably noted by the Chair of the Department of Anthropology at Purdue University should be a nice feather in Lars Walker's hat, er, helmet.)--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 03:34, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, but. wWalker published at least four novels through a sigbificant trade publisher, Baen Books. World at shows thatat least some of these books are still held by a few dozen libraries, which is a pretty good survival rate for paperback original genre fiction from the 1990s, and suggests the author's contenmporaneous visibility wasmuch higher thanit is now. For most authors, notability is based on coverage of their books, and bookreviews are notoriously difficult to search for online, especially with the GNews Archive no longer accessible. GBooks turns up multiple references to Walker in a Gale reference-type work called What Do I Read Next?, another indication that Walker was a notable author whose popularity has faded. Yes, the article is rather cursory, but there is envidence of the subject's notability, andwhile the delete !votes show the article is inadequate, they don't really address the evidence ofnotability. This article needs improvement, but AFD is not for cleanup. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 13:56, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- I think that ultimately the question is what readership do his books have. The amount of discussion this has generated suggest to me that he is probably notable, but I do not know and am thus not voting. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:07, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I just don't see evidence of notability. Being in a handful of libraries means nothing in terms of notability. Being published through a significant publisher does not establish it either. What Do I Read Next? sounds like a directory of books. Chillum 18:52, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete/userfy. The issue here is that I can't find anything to really show that Walker passes notability guidelines. It'd be nice if we could keep it, but there really isn't anything out there that would truly show that he passes AUTHOR. The thing about authors is that the guidelines are fairly high now: simply having published something through a mainstream publisher and/or publishing through notable magazines/outlets isn't enough. Stuff like that makes it more likely that someone will gain coverage, but it's never a guarantee- as we're seeing here. The thing about the whole idea of "ignore all rules" is that ultimately we do have to show some proof that the individual is notable in some form or fashion that would supersede the need for tons and tons of coverage. So far all we have that is even remotely usable is a brief mention in a newspaper article, an interview with a notable author, and a mention in a book that appears to be more of a list of stuff than a real in-depth look at the author or his work. If we'd had a good in-depth review from a reliable source (none of the other sources on the article are usable and all I came up with were blog hits) then we'd have some wiggle room here. I can't find anything out there and we'd really need some other coverage to be able to say that this author is more notable than any of the other hundreds of authors who have published through mainstream publishers yet never really gained any substantial coverage either. The fact that he has a fan following and that some recognize his name (WP:ITSPOPULAR, WP:ILIKEIT) can't give notability in and of itself - it just makes it more likely that someone will gain coverage. Even saying that he's the only or best of his type doesn't really do anything since we'd still require the coverage to back this up- and coverage is lacking in this instance. I say userfy this is anyone wants to do that and if/when more coverage is found, then it can go through DRV and (if approved) get restored. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:46, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I've located and included the review of Hal Gibson Pateshall Colebatch in News Weekly, which should constitute a solid, notable RS. Pax 00:31, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Found better source for Norwegian American review. This article now contains at least two RS, and should be kept. Pax 00:34, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.