Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marty Beckerman (2nd nomination)

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. No arguments for deletion aside from the original nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marty Beckerman

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

Beyond the fundamental point that this page is not NPOV (for some time now) the subject himself is not notable unless notable is redefined to such an extent as to render it meaningless. 98.110.112.197 (talk) Created at the request of an IP ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 08:31, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "NPOV" has nought to do with a reason for deletion - so we are left with "notability" being the only issue on the table. Person is published - writer fpr Esquire (27 items there), book author (eseveral found on Amazon with reasonable sales - "Generation S.L.U.T." is number 80 in books on Teen sexuality) thus meets author notability. Note: I just removed some of the puffery/anecdotalism from the article. Collect (talk) 10:28, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to the notable works mentioned by Collect? Heck, I'm a preacher's kid and even I've heard about Beckerman. But then of course, most preacher's kids are the most rebellious. I'm just saying. Not that I'm rebellious or anything mind you. Okay, maybe just a little bit. Cindamuse (talk) 10:59, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*delete fails WP:BIO based upon the article in it's current state. If someone fixes it, let me know and I'll reconsider. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:17, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep pasts WP:BIO as far as I can tell from the available sources. --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:38, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - While I have no opinion about whether this article is worthy of inclusion or not, this sort of puffery needs to go away: Beckerman is considered a prodigy in literature and widely known for his alternative works... Carrite (talk) 15:50, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I reworked the article by copy editing, reformatting, added more refs and just general tweaking. Hope this helps. I'm not personally invested, just thought I could do a bit of work on the article. There is much more work and sources that could be included, but I am a bit swamped in my real life at the moment. Cindamuse (talk) 17:38, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per above keeps.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:45, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - definitely notable ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 18:59, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 12 August 2010 (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.