Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sander Hicks

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 Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2007-01-02 08:44Z

[edit] Sander Hicks

Sander Hicks (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Non-notable author/publisher. Notability as a politician is questionable, as he failed the Green Party nomination; principle notability as an author is from a forthcoming book, and notability as a publisher is questioned below. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Together with:
Soft Skull Press (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Notability is questioned, as the entire article consists of a list of published authors, without specifying if it's a "vanity press". — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Note also that Horns and Halos, also up for deletion, does not lend notability to these topics, as it's more about the book and the author. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Is this a joint nomination? ~ trialsanderrors 21:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes. Possible outcomes include merging of one article into the other, as it could be agreed that one is to be kept, and the other has only derived notability, so it should be merged into the kept article. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep Soft Skull Press per authors like Genesis P-Orridge and Paul Berman who are independently notable. A vanity publisher in my understanding gets paid by the author for publishing. ~ trialsanderrors 22:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Soft Skull Press, Weak keep or possibly merge Sander Hicks. Otto4711 23:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep both. Soft Skull Press is a major independent press for a lot of notable authors, like William Upski Wimsatt. --Howrealisreal 23:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Sander Hicks because "Horns and Halos" is well reviewed, and not least because Hicks starred in and was also the subject of it. His book, The Big Wedding, is no longer just "forthcoming," but pretty well reviewed at Amazon. And by the way, when Mr. Rubin points out that Horns and Halo's is also up for deletion, he means, I think that Mr. Rubin also put Horns and Halos up for deletion :-) I guess it is not to everyone's taste. --Timtak 05:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Definite keep. I would be surprised if Sander Hicks did not have a place on wikipedia. Stan weller 10:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep both. Soft Skull is a notable non-vanity press, Hicks is an author for them. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. If Hicks were an author for them, it would be a serious point against his listing, as he was the owner of the firm. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 04:37, 1 January 2007 (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.