Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben Isitt

:{{la|Ben Isitt}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ben_Isitt Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Ben Isitt}})

WP:BLP of a politician and academic whose only substantive or sourced indication of notability is as a municipal councillor in a city not large enough to confer an automatic WP:NPOL pass on its city councillors (we extend that only to internationally famous global cities.) Further, the sourcing here is almost entirely of the primary variety — there's only one appropriate reliable source here, and it's just supporting a statement about his educational credentials rather than anything that would get him over a notability criterion (and was published nine years before he was actually elected to office, and is also an incomplete "publication + date but with no title" citation). So the sourcing doesn't even approach the volume or quality necessary to claim WP:GNG in lieu of NPOL. He might be able to claim notability as a writer, but that section of the article is completely unsourced (the one acceptable source in the article predates the books too.) Delete unless the sourcing can be massively beefed up onto his academic books instead of his city council seat. Bearcat (talk) 20:26, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:34, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:34, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: I have created stubs on 2 of his books; From Victoria to Vladivostok: Canada's Siberian Expedition, 1917-19 (2010) and Militant Minority: British Columbia Workers and the Rise of a New Left, 1948-72 (2011).--Skr15081997 (talk) 11:18, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

::For both of those, you still need to write a lot more than a single sentence asserting that the book exists — neither one of those articles, in its current form, demonstrates any reason why the books would actually merit standalone encyclopedia articles under our rules for determining the notability or non-notability of books. Bearcat (talk) 18:10, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

:::*Actually, WP:TBK says that a book may be notable because it was published by an academic press. In this case, they both satisfy that criteria. They also satisfy criteria 2 of BKCRIT and GNG with multiple book reviews. James500 (talk) 20:49, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

::::*Keep; Satisfies WP:AUTHOR. Let me expand the book articles.--Skr15081997 (talk) 11:11, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

• Keep. Obviously notable. Satisfies AUTHOR, and GNG and BASIC, with significant coverage in multiple periodical book reviews. James500 (talk) 20:49, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
• Keep. He doesn't pass WP:POLITICIAN but the book reviews are enough for WP:AUTHOR. On the other hand, the micro-stubs for his books should probably be merged back into this article. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:02, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.