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 speedy keep due to the nominator's withdrawal with a unanimous keep consensus, per WP:SKCRIT#1. (non-admin closure) Vaticidalprophet 04:41, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Daniel (science fiction writer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Doesn't meet GNG or NCREATIVE Withdrawn, see below. HouseOfChange (talk) 01:53, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. HouseOfChange (talk) 01:53, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Has an entry in a SF reference work: [1]. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 02:05, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, is being anthologized a sign of NAUTHOR? See [2], for instance. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 02:29, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There are Publishers Weekly and Kirkus reviews for Metaplanetary[3][4] and Warpath[5][6], for example, satisfying WP:NAUTHOR. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:12, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:25, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. He's been nominated for Hugo and won a Asimov’s Reader’s Poll Award which I don't know what that is but sounds fancy. He's written some Star Trek TOS novels which Star Trek is a big deal and he has to have been officially selected for that. He's also written some nonfiction. He's an editor at Baen Books. He's written a couple movie scripts, B movies. He's a reasonaboy prolific reviewer too (at The Federalist, why they review SciFi I don't know but they do.) Novelist, book editor, non-fiction writer, review, screenwriter -- sounds like a man of letters to me, appropriate for an article.

Bottom line is that there's clearly enough sources to write an OK article, proven because there is an OK article. It's an OK article, it's an ornament to the project on net, he's clearly a somebody, as a man of letters he's an encyclopedic subject for sure, people ware going to want to read the article, either after/before reading his stuff or other reasons, so why worry about this GNG or that GNG. Don't get hung up on acronyms. Herostratus (talk) 05:56, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It does meet WP:NAUTHOR, as it says he appeared in The Year's Best Science Fiction numerous times. Also, as per above, there are some reliable sources. -Cupper52^Discuss! 10:41, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Plenty of proof that this author meets notability guidelines.--SouthernNights (talk) 14:05, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep there are multiple sources from well-known websites and they have been nominated for/won multiple awards. Wgullyn (talk) 19:11, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawn With apologies, I withdraw this AfD. I should have checked "What links here," e.g. Best of the Best: 20 Years of the Year's Best Science Fiction. It will be great if RS citations for the notability claims mentioned above can be added to the article. HouseOfChange (talk) 20:01, 15 January 2022 (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.