Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Seidel

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:49, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Seidel

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Came across this article while looking at orphans. No significant independent coverage to meet WP:NAUTHOR or WP:NPERSON. Newspapers.com, ProQuest, and Google came up and the best were interviews and a single book review in a journal here}. The page was created a long time ago by the author himself. -1ctinus📝🗨 18:34, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Architecture, Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:55, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He does not appear to be notable as an architect or through WP:PROF, but I found and added to the article seven reviews of four books. I think that's enough for WP:AUTHOR. And the entry about him in The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction goes some way towards GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:53, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per David Eppstein. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:36, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Meh I see very little impact - low sales (checking Amazon although that's not 100%), not carried by many libraries (checked books in WorldCat), reviews only in niche journals (with Counterpoise being the best known). I'll go with Weak delete but I think that's generous. Lamona (talk) 23:03, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I guess. Like Lamona's !vote, just on the other side. I don't think David Eppstein's sources show a WP:NAUTHOR pass so much as a pass of the one book specifically (the others only have one review each). But we don't have an article on that book to redirect to, and I don't think it would be helpful to do that anyway. The SF encyclopedia entry helps, a bit. Meh is right. -- asilvering (talk) 00:37, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:32, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there is plenty of sources on Newspapers.com
- Laffoon, Polk (1973-08-31). "Peter Seidel: one man against waste". The Cincinnati Post. p. 39. Retrieved 2024-08-27.
- Wall, Tom (1973-12-12). "Using city land better: one man offers an idea". The Cincinnati Post. p. 11. Retrieved 2024-08-27.
- Thomas, Jo (1970-07-08). "'Green belt' plan may help to slay the inner city dragon". The Cincinnati Post. p. 30. Retrieved 2024-08-27.
- Sanger, Carol (1971-02-23). ""This city is livable; New York frightens me"". The Cincinnati Post. pp. 36–37. Retrieved 2024-08-27.
- Dr vulpes (Talk) 06:16, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment why did you delete the bibliography? -1ctinus📝🗨 18:45, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dr vulpes. C F A 💬 18:31, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. User:Dr vulpes has removed from the article the material that my comment above uses as the basis for notability: his published books and their published reviews (which consistitute in-depth independent sourcing about his work). They can still be found in the article history at Special:Diff/1241527127. Dr vulpes: this behavior comes across as inconsiderate of other editors, disruptive, and prejudicial to the AfD, since additional AfD participants will no longer see these sources before formulating their opinions. Please revert yourself, for the books at least. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:07, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@David Eppstein sorry about that I've correct the issue. Dr vulpes (Talk) 22:56, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! —David Eppstein (talk) 00:38, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Appears to be several sources even that are not in the article. StewdioMACK (talk) 20:28, 28 August 2024 (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.