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 keep. (non-admin closure) --Regards, MrScorch6200 (talk · contribs) 19:21, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory Orfalea[edit]

Gregory Orfalea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

No indication of notability, no reliable sources. My Google searches found a couple of book reviews from the WSJ, Kirkus and Publishers Weekly, but no significant coverage of the author himself. The current version of the article was heavily edited by User:Gmo89 who claimed on IRC to be Mr. Orfalea himself. Huon (talk) 15:51, 8 February 2014 (UTC) Huon (talk) 15:51, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP I disagree I did find articles about the said author along with the book reviews you mentioned. Furthermore a quick trip to the library could provide you with the reliable source that you need. Here's one article I found: http://www.independent.com/news/2014/jan/11/que-serra-serra/?on George Al-Shami (talk) 00:16, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. A GS h-index of 3 indicates nomination is far too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:14, 9 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]
• Weak Keep - Although the article has only one reference I found a number of independent sources, for example (link)that would support a prime face case of notability. I would suggest to the author of the article that more independent reference material would result in a wiki inclusion. CrookedwithaK (talk) 09:55, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is the subject's work. It is not an independent assessment of his work by others and so does not count for notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:03, 10 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]

• Keep. It looks like he has a number of books that are widely held in library collections. WorldCat reports: 1128, 627, 607, 538, ... The article is a mess right now, with zero sources. But I think the text could be fixed-up with a suitable assertion of notability so that the article becomes acceptable. Agricola44 (talk) 19:52, 10 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep -- impressive library holdings are key elements of notability for biographers, historians, etc., h-indexes are irrelevant. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 20:48, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is that codified in the rules? WP:PROF is so complex I don't know. In general though the popularity of an author is not considered notable eg. best seller lists are not notable. Likewise library holdings is a sign of popularity. Generally we judge authors based on WP:AUTHOR which typically means book reviews. With that said when an author is widely held it's a good sign they probably have book reviews. -- GreenC 17:45, 15 February 2014 (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.