Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Crowe

:{{la|Dan Crowe}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dan_Crowe Stats])

:({{Find sources|Dan Crowe}})

Minor writer that fails WP:BIO. Article reads like an advertisement, and the writer Dan Crowe has not published anything of note. scope_creep 20:39, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

:Oppose: The article does have some problems, however I don't have any concerns with WP:NOTADVERTISING, the sources, and, while I understand the fear, I think he is notable. PrairieKid (talk) 21:14, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• Delete classic example of someone who has written but not been written about much. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:57, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

---

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:58, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

---

• Delete The subject is not very noteworthy, by subjective standards (he's written what appears to be 3 articles total). He doesn't pass WP:ANYBIO, but that isn't a criteria for deletion. Along similar lines, this article seems to faili WP:SPIP since the only sources for the article are interviews and profiles of the author, which appears to fail the "other's have written about the subject" clause of WP:SPIP. The books by the author fail WP:BKCRIT which would indicate that the books are trivial or non-notable, and therefore the author, let alone of the EDITOR, are also most likely non-notable. Delete and move on. Chimpfunkz (talk) 16:29, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
• Delete -- His main claim to fame is that he edited an magazine: evidently not a successful one as it is defunct. That strikes me as NN. The alterntive might be to merge with the magazine (or vice versa). Peterkingiron (talk) 17:00, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

: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.