Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Garrett Sutton (author)

: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The result was withdrawn by nominator. ✗plicit 11:43, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

=[[:Garrett Sutton (author)]]=

:{{la|1=Garrett Sutton (author)}} – (View AfDView log | edits since nomination)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=Garrett Sutton (author)}})

~~Author does not seem to meet WP:NBIO- coverage is mostly interviews, WP:PASSING mentions and routine book reviews. MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:30, 28 December 2021 (UTC)~~

Withdrawn by nominator. MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:26, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Keep - I disagree with OP interpretation that book reviews are routine. Certainly, book reviews of someone's work shows the person's notability and are one of the ways to guage notability. It meets WP:NAUTHOR point 3 "or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". There is also significant coverage like [https://www.encyclopedia.com/arts/educational-magazines/sutton-garrett-1953 Cengage] along with all the book reviews. The tone of the article can be more neutral, but the subject is notable ([https://www.worldcat.org/identities/lccn-n2001109432/ 5,407 library holdings]). Additionally, there is some coverage about his legal career, but is behind paywall. VWidrich (talk) 08:51, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:35, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:35, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Weak keep, reviews seem legitimate enough, though some other referenced could maybe be trimmed. Geschichte (talk) 08:09, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:07, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Keep "Routine book reviews" is an oxymoron; book reviews always count towards notability for authors. Mlb96 (talk) 06:06, 5 January 2022 (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.