Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avalyn Hunter
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. -- Cirt (talk) 01:00, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Avalyn Hunter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable author of non-notable books. I was going to PROD the article, but then noticed that it had been previously prodded so I changed it to this AfD. Fages (talk) 17:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Well I found this which looks like she's gotten some notice... not sure if it's enough though. BE——Critical__Talk 18:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Does not meet any of the notability criteria at WP:AUTHOR. Uncle Dick (talk) 23:36, 25 August 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) 00:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I relisted this by accident. It can probably be closed. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Bit of a curio really and I think WP would be enriched with it present. The books are not going to sell in the stratospheric numbers, by their very nature, but their are a fair number of ghits. I think it is worth keeping and expanding. scope_creep (talk) 18:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete it because that dick above said to and I agree with him. 207.81.170.99 (talk) 06:45, 27 August 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.