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. -- Cirt (talk) 01:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Henderson (novelist)[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Article claimed the author was a NYTimes Notable book for 1993 or 1994, but the Times articles do not support statement. Article appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:AUTHOR. ttonyb (talk) 05:06, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Please see here for book being noted in Times: http://www.nytimes.com/1995/04/09/books/new-noteworthy-paperbacks-326296.html Vrivers (talk) 01:44, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – That may show notability for the book, but I don't see "non-trivial" coverage of the author as required by WP:BIO. ttonyb (talk) 02:40, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per Vrivers - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – for writing at least two books that got coverage several years apart. WP:AUTH #3 is likely the pertinent point by which this AfD stands or fails. Lambanog (talk) 18:52, 21 September 2010 (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.