Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Lewis

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 speedy keep - bad faith nomination. FCYTravis 04:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Lewis

Even as an author, Lewis isn't notable. Zero books on Amazon.com. --Jason Gastrich 04:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. --Jason Gastrich 04:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep HELLO he wrote his books in the 1920s before there was even an internet, let alone Amazon. Ruby 04:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Joseph Lewis has 34 books listed on amazon.com (note: the search says 51 hits, but I count 34 of these to be unambiguously attributed to THIS Joseph Lewis).--Pierremenard 12:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ruby's explanation of era. Also WP:POINT. Also bad faith nom. Also he's notable. Crunch 04:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Crunch. --keepsleeping quit your job! slack off! 04:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, bad faith nomination; Lewis was a major force for rational thought in the days before the growth of significant mass media. Though somewhat eclipsed by later authors and thinkers, he certainly influenced many of them. - WarriorScribe 04:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Many books in an era when they meant a lot more. Very poor nomination. Dlyons493 Talk 05:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "Many books in an era when they meant a lot more." That's a great point. - WarriorScribe 16:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dlyons493|. -- Dragonfiend 05:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Yet another bad faith nomination/WP:POINT violation from Gastrich. Guettarda 06:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep another bad faith nomination by Gastrich. Mark K. Bilbo 06:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sounds notable. Jason really did overdo it with the atheist nominations.--T. Anthony 07:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a notable person. --Bduke 11:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - as I noted in a comment above, the premise of this nomination is false. See Amazon.com hits for Joseph Lewis. Now WP:BIO gives us a criterion for the evaluation of whether a dead person belongs on wikipedia: " Has the person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in the specific field? The fact that you can buy his books now on amazon even though hes been dead for a while suggests the answer is an unambiguous yes. --Pierremenard 12:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your logic, as Spock would say, is impeccable. Ruby 15:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:POINT and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jason Gastrich Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 13:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Notable. Obvious bad faith nomination by Gastrich. --FloNight 14:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per FloNight --kingboyk 17:10, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Yet another bad faith nomination/WP:POINT violation from Gastrich. --Censorwolf 17:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Note: Jason, Amazon isn't the only bookseller on the planet. Try Half.com, try e-bay, try b&n (Oh, I just noticed that B&N doesn't sell any of Gastrich' books. Oh dear. Jim62sch 18:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Keep per above. Latinus 18:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --NaconKantari (話)|(郵便) 18:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per above. - David Björklund (talk) 18:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, bad faith nom, WP:POINT. After 10 or more of these it is time to block nominator for disruption of Wikipedia. MCB 22:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep vindictive nom by Gastrich of a notable person.Blnguyen 23:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep as blatant violation of WP:POINT. Also, the nominator of this article has a currently ongoing RFC and his motives are clearly suspect. Cyde Weys 23:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Jason decided to make this us vs. them, and I choose them. --StuffOfInterest 00:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Why was this nominated for deletion? Arbustoo 02:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)*[reply]
Keep per Ruby, Pierremenard, and WP:POINT. Harvestdancer 02:33, 23 January 2006 (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.