Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ransom Riggs

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. Tone 19:53, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ransom Riggs

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

Unsourced biography with dubious claim of notability. All but one external links merely direct to subject's personal sites, such as his Facebook and Twitter accounts, and the one that links to a possible reliable source (IMDB) makes no mention of anything that this article is about, so I can't even be positive if it is the same individual or just someone else with the same name Rorshacma (talk) 18:00, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:32, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. He is the author of Miss Peregrine's Home for Peculiar Children which at the time of the AFD nomination has no article, but should have one, and I intend to correct that. The novel was/is a NY Times best seller: see August 2011, and current. There is a bit of biographical material about the author interspersed with material about his book in this Sarasota Herald-Tribune article, and this National Post article. The keep is a weak one as notability as an author seems to rest mainly on the one work, and his other works have not received the same attention. -- Whpq (talk) 19:29, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I have now created the article Miss Peregrine's Home for Peculiar Children. Given the number of book reviews and coverage for the book, redirecting would also be a viable option. -- Whpq (talk) 21:56, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I've expanded the article on Ransom Riggs, and added references. -- Whpq (talk) 15:38, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:03, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sufficient coverage to establish notability. See also [1], [2], [3], [4].--Michig (talk) 07:31, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There appear to be enough reliable sources to establish notability, including quite a few newspaper articles. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:46, 6 January 2012 (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.