Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/L. Neil Smith

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 of the debate was - kept

[edit] L. Neil Smith

Delete I believe this article is pure vanity. L Neil Smith is an obscure author who writes books about libertarianism and science fiction. He would not get a mention in any serious encyclopedia. Reithy 21:21, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Delete This is a vanity page. L. Neil Smith, I respectfully submit is an obscure author who is creative enough to write about libertarianism through the vehicle of science fiction. Kudos for such lateral thinking but he is no Charles Dickens, or even a John Grisham. Reithy 21:13, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Couple dozen titles on Amazon (albeit, many OOP.) 13,700 hits on Google. 20 titles at UC Library. What's the threshold, anyway? --jpgordon {gab} 21:55, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. My opinion is the bar should be very low for including published authors and scientists. Rhobite 23:19, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep The only reason this is considered for deletion is Reithy's dislike of libertarians. It is ludicrous to delete this. Amazon.com carries 32 of his books, and my local library system carries 7 of them. pstudier 00:34, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Keep - I can't imagine a label less likely than "libertarian science fiction author" to make me check out his books, but there's a bunch of 'em, published by real publishers, therefore I find him encyclopedia-worthy according to our community standards. —Stormie 00:37, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Like him and his politics or not, one could rarely call him "obscure". One book, Forge of the Elders, has over 30 used copies available at Amazon, has 28 customer reviews, and two reviews from notable book review publications. In addition, he has also written published short stories in the Star Wars and other major sci-fi genres, an achievement that by itself would preclude calling him "obscure". --Feedle 01:17, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, notable author. More of Reithy's anti-Libertarian rampage. RickK 23:52, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC) vote merged in from Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/L Neil Smith —Stormie 01:38, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, he may be well known as say as somebody such as Heinlein or Anderson or even Drake in Sci-Fi but, he does have his own niche and is worthy of a wikipedia article. ScottM 03:32, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Two dozen plus vanity-published books might disqualify (discounting amusement value), but this isn't the case. That Reithy voted twice (also amusing) might be telling us something.--NathanHawking 21:41, 2004 Oct 14 (UTC)
• Keep. Just cos reithy doesn't like libertarians is no reason to remove legitimate articles from the wikipedia. Scottbeck 22:49, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• "He would not get a mention in any serious encyclopedia" is wrong. Smith gets half a page in The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction. Gdr 23:25, 2004 Oct 14 (UTC)
• Keep. Legitimate bio on reasonably popular author. — Gwalla | Talk 00:10, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Just because I won't buy any of his books written after 1982 doesn't mean he's not worthy of an entry. Keep. DS 00:42, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Keep DCEdwards1966 17:36, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. Yet another senseless VfD candidate. This is getting depressing. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, there is no point in supressing valid historical information, although those with a God complex may believe otherwise. Radman1 14:38, 18 Oct 2004 (PST)

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.