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. (non-admin closure) Alexnia (talk) 16:57, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Plante[edit]

Brian Plante (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Article has been tagged since Aug 08 as not having established notability. Article has been tagged since Aug 08 as not having citations or reliable sources. Neither of these have been fixed, nor the work improved. This is a biography regarding a supposed but mostly unknown writer. I have been unable to find additional material to support inclusion. -t BMW c- 17:10, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete There's no hint of notability in this article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:17, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep I'm changing my opinion. An editor has supplied references indicating some notability. Good enough for me. Won an award. Has recieved some recognition. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:40, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Stopping short of speedy because 16 stories published in a magazine is a start. However, this is well short of the requirements listed on WP:BK, and no traces on Google other than probable self-published sources. Unless better claim to notability presented, Delete. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:20, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Borderline keep. Still only really associated with one magazine, but the fact that covereage of his stories in the magazine have been mentioned elsewhere just about counts in his favour. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 21:18, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • He's been in other mags as well. Lot of semipro ones. Also a Writers of the Future sale (anthology, prize). Besides, I really don't see why it would make him a better candidate if you took the 16 Analog sales and divided them between Analog and IASFM and FSF. I mean it's the same output and of the same caliber. What if some famous writer only published under Campbell? NB: I'll consider a different argument that short story writers are not notable (of this sort, not EA Poe!) But then we need to flesh that out. And at least be clear on it. Rather than putting down someone for concentrating at Analog, which is arguably the most read SF magazine. TCO (talk) 01:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Kill it. TCO (talk) 17:35, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Belay my last! Keep the sucker. I made a stub and someone came and added good content. I guess this is the way wiki is supposed to work. Deletionists foiled again...mwahahaha! But next time, I will just write an entire article in user space to FA status and then add it to wiki. Since the deletionists think that is how wiki should work. And really maybe they have a point. I'll take a dedicated smart researcher who writes an article the way one would for Brittinica (of same caliber) over the iterative method. Anyhow...Dravecky is THE MAN for saving Brian. TCO (talk) 00:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is supposed to be a discussion, not a "vote". - Dravecky (talk) 16:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not notable Clubmarx (talk) 20:00, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - changing my vote due to new info. --Clubmarx (talk) 21:43, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment He won the Analog Science Fiction and Fact reader's poll twice. At the time I thought that made him marginally notable, but the world of short SF writers is maybe of more interest to me than the general public.--T. Anthony (talk) 05:29, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As his sole connection is with one niche magazine (albeit one with a long history), I'm still not convinced this warrants a mention outside the magazine, but I can see a case for including it within the Analog Science Fiction and Fact article (or maybe a fiction sub-page). Anyway, I'm including this in the Science Fiction deletion sorting and see what they say. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 10:40, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 10:38, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep as I have now added several references, added categories, then expanded and detailed the section on honors and awards including two AnLab wins, a Writers of the Future finalist, and a Nebula Award nomination. WP:BK doesn't apply since this man is not, himself, a book and there are numerous sources about the author to be found with Google from reliable third-party sources. (Some are now included in the article.) The age of the tags does little to move me since the article had been not been given any stub tag, category, or wikiproject tag so it was quite a bit less likely to come to the attention of an interested editor. - Dravecky (talk) 16:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Good work, Dravecky. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:51, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 10 November 2008 (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.