Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jan Guenther Braun

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. KaisaL (talk) 08:19, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Guenther Braun

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails WP:Author and WP:ANYBIO. Largely based on WP:PRIMARY, so I also searched for sources outside the article but couldn't find much. Dorama285 (talk) 16:09, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per nom. --BonkHindrance (talk) 16:11, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:30, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:31, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I would not call for a speedy deletion, since she does have some write-ups in scholarly work and has some citations. Reasonable minds can disagree - this is not an open and shut case. Bearian (talk) 13:55, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have reached out to three relevant wiki-projects in the hope of getting more discussion. I do not believe this violations WP:CANVASS. Bearian (talk) 13:59, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearian:, you might ask at the Refdesk if anyone has leads on profiles or scholarly criticism. Gleeanon409 (talk) 14:09, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't think it meets criteria for speedy delete. With respect to WP:AUTHOR, I think there is enough there about queer identity in the Mennonite context that it may meet criterion 3. That possible area is admittedly a relatively specific one, but I wouldn't rule it out. With respect to WP:PRIMARY, the first four references in the article are written by individuals other than the subject, so I don't think it's clearly a reliance on primary sources. However since those cites aren't online, it's difficult to judge. The fact of only one book published certainly counts against notability. I think further investigation is needed. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 18:23, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This obviously doesn't meet any of the criteria for speedy deletion, so that should be out of the question. As for the non-primary sources offered, the Cruz book has a 17-page chapter about Braun's novel, the Kuester paper has about three pages of coverage, and the Milne article is a two-page review. All are published by academic publishers. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:59, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:15, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why are the sources that I identified above not sufficient to demonstrate notability? I really think that something needs to be done to stop people commenting at AfD without taking the previous discussion into account. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:40, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep To reiterate Phil Bridger's point, there are some significant academic non-trivial sources establishing this writer's importance. User:Mennowiki
Keep Now that Phil Bridger has reviewed the hard copy material (Thanks, Phil), I think there is sufficient academic commentary on the author to move to Keep. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 13:19, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:03, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:14, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:14, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The first three sources in the article make it clear that this is a notable work worthy of academic interest. -- Toughpigs (talk) 18:51, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources identified. Gleeanon409 (talk) 19:15, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Rab V (talk) 19:18, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Phil Bridger. The Drover's Wife (talk) 20:07, 13 March 2020 (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.