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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 17:44, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Errol Fuller

[edit]

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

Notability per WP:CREATIVE seems unclear. All content came from single-purpose account RoAlFuGr (talk · contribs), which sets off the alarm. Google searches yield nothing but book reviews. bender235 (talk) 15:47, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno, the bibliography alone is probably enough for notability. The image files all have dubious copyright status though, they should probably be looked over. Hairhorn (talk) 17:59, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, article seems weak and promotional, but the subject seems worthy of a better article. here's a new scientist book review, an associated press review, new york times review. another AP mention. Sources are out there and article would benefit from rewriting, not deletion. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Two editions of Extinct Birds and a substantial monograph on the Great Auk Alca impennis have established Errol Fuller's credentials as a chronicler of vanished species." from a peer reviewed journal. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:59, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
78 google scholar citations for just one work. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:01, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or userfy - As a popular writer, he might pass WP:CREATIVE, and the reviews could be used as reliable sources. If not, than it could be moved to user space. Bearian (talk) 20:21, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Night Gyr. --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:40, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:AUTO; only cited author is Errol Fuller himself.~~the subject of the article itself.~~--Darius (talk) 21:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. WP:AUTO does not mandate deletion of autobiograhical articles or of articles based on autobiographical sources, so "Delete per WP:AUTO" is meaningless. And the point of this discussion is to discuss whether sufficient coverage of the subject exists in independent reliable sources, not just to point out what is or is not currently in the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:53, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is an open debate, so a fix "point of discussion" is also meaningless. The only source for the article is Errol Fuller, and "writing an autobiography on Wikipedia is strongly discouraged". Few independent sources cite Fuller in google books, while a couple of reviews don't make him "an important figure" or " known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique", as established by the criteria for notability.--Darius (talk) 05:00, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It has been demonstrated above that plenty of sources are available for this subject that are not written by Errol Fuller. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:53, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If we have so many sources, then the article should be rewritten using exclusively those sources and not Fuller himself.--Darius (talk) 11:43, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha Quadrant ^talk 14:10, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it's apparently not an autobiography and the subject is not the only cited author. I think Night Gyr has established that he's notable, as the author of books such as Extinct Birds, not as an artist. —innotata 14:22, 12 April 2011 (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.