Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Talbot

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. John254 01:15, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Talbot

Does not seem to be a notable author and I judge him to fail WP:BIO. His books made reference to a number of notable figures and subjects, but he himself was not famous outside of the small parochial group of New Age enthusiasts. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as author of notable book Holographic Universe (see its article). FWIW, I recognized the name of the book, but not his name. Ma^t_chups 18:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per WP:N, WP:V and WP:HEY. Easily meets notability requirements. Google books shows Talbot cited in hundreds of books. Some narrowing of the search was needed because there's another author by that name, so that search includes the term "holographic" from the title of his most well known book. That may have caused some additional citations to be omitted from the total. The article obviously needs work to bring in sources, but that's not a criteria for deletion when the topic is sufficiently notable. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 19:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The summaries of Talbot's works and philosophy within the article appear to be original research based upon his published works. While evidence is given (above) that he is cited in other works, I feel this only supports the notability of his published work, and does very little to support the need for a separate page biographing the author. I'd need specific instances of resources that suggest otherwise, not just a ghit count; and I'd further expect the article to be written based primarily upon such sources. -Verdatum (talk) 20:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He has an entry in Gale's Contemporary Authors, and a NYT obit [1] which are good enough for me. There are a few other results at Google News which might be useful: [2]. Zagalejo^^^ 20:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, author of notable book and there's sufficient material to sustain a separate article. His work is widely cited and he's listed in Gale's Contemporary Authors, and he's got a NYT obit. Those reasons combined are more than enough to keep. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:56, 1 December 2008 (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.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 06:47, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 06:47, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]