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 delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:30, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of celebrity authors[edit]

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

This list can never be complete; it suffers from systematic bias; and it contains an unrelated discussion of the suitability of celebrity authors' books for children. Vectro (talk) 20:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Wikipedia accepts incomplete lists; Wikipedia itself also suffers from systematic bias. Unrelated discussions can be removed via normal editing. Polarpanda (talk) 23:17, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. —Polarpanda (talk) 23:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It needs some inclusion criteria and a different title, although it's not a bad idea for a topic. What the author appears to be aiming at is persons who are famous for being something other than authors, and who have works of fiction to their credit. Many celebrated actors, athletes and politicians have lent their names to non-fiction books (autobiographies for instance). Although the discriminating information is greatly appreciated, I don't see how a long list of authors can have a paragraph for each entry. I'd like to see this work out, don't know if it can. Mandsford 00:17, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with what would need to change to allow it to stay. a better title might be "List of novels by people from other fields". (hmm, this hard). I also am not sure we can come up with a way to make this work as a list. I really dont like the word "celebrities" in article names or as a criteria. its like using "notable" which of course is redundant here, but has an implicit meaning of someone being glamorous, or fashionable, or famous for being famous. too vague and subjective to me.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete What constitutes a "celebrity"? The authors appear to be mostly U.S. entertainers. The common ground argument is too slender to support this article. Joal Beal (talk) 19:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete As inclusion into this list is biased as people have different opinions on what constitutes a "celebrity". It could be argued that every author is a celebrity, even if it is minor, local celebrity status. If it includes everyone that has a Wikipedia article, it still has bias as not every author has "celebrity" status of sorts. Possible OR is invoved as well. Tavix | Talk 14:27, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Criteria for inclusion is too vague. --Pink Bull 01:43, 27 May 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.