241:
rings book she wrote back when that was the craze. Etc. The only reason I am uncertain about my vote is that it is possible she is notable as an academic literary critic. I do not know. I am certain her da vinci code book is not notable relative to others and that there are many more notable religous writers both popular religous writers and academic religous writers. Just thinking it through seriously. Maybe I have too high expectations for notablity?--
187:
are many many non-notable authors out there, she just semms to do a good job of hopping on the latest trend to sell books and push religous ideology. In the larger scheme of things it will be a non-notable book. I understand the notability of anti-davinci code books in general, but a page for each of the authors of such books??--
147:
It seems that she may be notable for writing about other notable authors and books. I understand that is the nature of literary criticism however being a literary critic that adresses famous books and authors does not necessarily make one notable. Appearing on the catholic TV network for interviews,
240:
I'm
Catholic. No agenda here. It just seems that there are many more notable books refuting the da vinci code from a catholic perspective and many more notable contributors to special interest periodicals that don't have wikipedia pages and her other books seem to be similar such as the lord of the
257:
Before this AfD I didn't know she'd written a DaVinci book, though I was aware she was a
Catholic commentator, so I'm not surprised. I've been reading her analysis of SF for years, especially the Dickson material, which is very good. I think within the genre, as the definitive analyst of two great
186:
I'm tempted to switch to weak keep, however I'm still not sure that an author who seems to be a puppet for a religion writing a catholic-pop novel with the name of the most popular book on the planet in the title and therefore significant distribution doesn't mean that the author is notable. There
152:
myself but I'm not notable, just published. I'm not voting delete because I am not qualified to judge. It just seems questionable. Are these books notable??? Widely published and read??? I don't know. Certainly other than the books the other work is definitely not
223:
reference, and the assumption that she's "hopping on the latest trend." It's one of the many books debating the claims in the novel. I don't believe her faith automatically labels her as a puppet. The fact is that she was an established writer long before this.
169:
Search for her on Amazon. Anyone with that many books published (by real publishers, not vanity) makes the grade IMO. Even if they're not best sellers, they're still in print. Her book on the Da Vinci Code is at Amazon rank #1070 right now, due to that craze.
302:
I have reorganized the article to emphasize her notability. Moving that she has a bachlor's degree to the bottom etc. That way the reader will understand why she has an article. Fan1967 -perhaps you could improve it more being familiar with her
203:
On further investigation there are 200+ books on the Da Vinci code and this one is not near the top of the list. There are not wikipedia pages for each of those authors. Leaning towards weak delete.--
92:
Seems adequately published author. The links show some other books not included in the articles. A Separate Star: A Science
Fiction Tribute to Rudyard Kipling (1989) , Heads to the Storm (1989).
148:
writing for a catholic religous magazine, or appearing at religious conferences doesn't necessarily make someone notable either. I am a published author and speaker on
316:
I've added some stuff on
Dickson (which I've just been rereading lately) and also rearranged the article to give fair coverage to both her SF and religious writings.
17:
78:(was No Vote) Not certain on this one myself, but convinced by the plethora of competing non-notable books for each of her's
286:
Maybe NPOV language not quoting herself but indicating her expert standing should be added. Thanks for the clarification.
391:
36:
390:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
374:
371:
353:
350:
337:
320:
307:
294:
262:
245:
228:
207:
191:
174:
157:
135:
115:
84:
68:
52:
107:
367:
346:
128:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
334:
345:
per Fan1967 and
Hornplease. (I thought I recognized that name when I scanned AfD.) —
93:
317:
259:
225:
171:
132:
124:
58:
49:
304:
291:
242:
204:
188:
154:
81:
65:
384:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
333:
per Fan1967. Can't stand
Dickson myself, but takes all sorts.
329:
Being an authority on a major work of SF makes her notable.
123:
Numerous publications. Well-known analyst on the works of
64:
not notable, minor religous and science fiction writer
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
394:). No further edits should be made to this page.
8:
7:
131:, both very well-known SF authors.
219:I'm sensing an agenda here in the
24:
362:. Nomination withdrawn, and no
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
44:The result of the debate was
411:
387:Please do not modify it.
375:18:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
354:18:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
338:06:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
321:00:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
308:23:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
295:23:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
288:I withdraw my nomination
263:23:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
258:authors, she's notable.
246:22:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
229:22:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
208:22:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
192:22:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
175:21:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
158:21:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
136:21:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
116:21:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
85:21:25, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
69:21:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
53:04:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
32:Please do not modify it.
221:"puppet for a religion"
48:(and nom withdrawn).
150:important subjects
129:Gordon R. Dickson
402:
389:
113:
110:
105:
102:
99:
96:
34:
410:
409:
405:
404:
403:
401:
400:
399:
398:
392:deletion review
385:
366:votes left. —
111:
108:
103:
100:
97:
94:
62:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
408:
406:
397:
396:
380:
379:
378:
377:
340:
326:
325:
324:
323:
311:
310:
297:
280:
279:
278:
277:
276:
275:
274:
273:
272:
271:
270:
269:
268:
267:
266:
265:
249:
248:
232:
231:
211:
210:
195:
194:
178:
177:
161:
160:
139:
138:
118:
87:
61:
56:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
407:
395:
393:
388:
382:
381:
376:
373:
369:
365:
361:
357:
356:
355:
352:
348:
344:
341:
339:
336:
332:
328:
327:
322:
319:
315:
314:
313:
312:
309:
306:
301:
298:
296:
293:
289:
285:
282:
281:
264:
261:
256:
253:
252:
251:
250:
247:
244:
239:
236:
235:
234:
233:
230:
227:
222:
218:
215:
214:
213:
212:
209:
206:
202:
199:
198:
197:
196:
193:
190:
185:
182:
181:
180:
179:
176:
173:
168:
165:
164:
163:
162:
159:
156:
151:
146:
143:
142:
141:
140:
137:
134:
130:
126:
125:Poul Anderson
122:
119:
117:
114:
106:
91:
88:
86:
83:
79:
77:
73:
72:
71:
70:
67:
60:
59:Sandra Miesel
57:
55:
54:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
386:
383:
368:Arthur Rubin
363:
359:
347:Arthur Rubin
342:
330:
299:
287:
283:
254:
237:
220:
216:
200:
183:
166:
149:
144:
120:
89:
75:
74:
63:
45:
43:
31:
28:
360:Speedy Keep
76:Weak Delete
358:Make that
335:Hornplease
153:notable.--
50:Tyrenius
318:Fan1967
305:Nick Y.
303:work.--
300:Comment
292:Nick Y.
260:Fan1967
255:Comment
243:Nick Y.
238:Comment
226:Fan1967
217:Comment
205:Nick Y.
201:Comment
189:Nick Y.
184:Comment
172:Fan1967
167:Comment
155:Nick Y.
145:comment
133:Fan1967
82:Nick Y.
66:Nick Y.
372:(talk)
364:Delete
351:(talk)
16:<
343:Keep
331:Keep
284:Keep
127:and
121:Keep
90:Keep
46:Keep
370:|
349:|
104:493
290:--
112:lk
109:Ta
101:ns
98:yo
95:Dl
80:--
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.