Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaron Kent

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 delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:26, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Kent

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

This is a non-notable biography. Sources are either the subject's websites or self-published sources such as blogs, with the only exception being the sabotagereviews.com reference which includes just a single paragraph on one of the author's works within a review of a collection of other works. The article was created as a draft and moved into article space by a new user (who just made enough edits to get autoconfirmed, in order to make the move), deceptively subverting the normal WP:AFC review process. Edgeweyes (talk) 13:30, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As stated on the Wikipedia Biography page an article must be "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" and Kent's recent Poetic Interviews makes this so alone - as the project is completely new in style and approach within the poetry community (see Wikipedia requirement for creative professionals 2 - The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique). Considering the breadth and scope of the work, and the individuals involved, this is a significant enough piece of work within the poetry and literature community to ensure his relevance. Also, through the screening of his films, and the recent inclusion of his work on various outlets (podcasts etc) these showcase importance. Finally the self-pblished blogs are not just minor blogs but interviews on literary websites, and one in particular is a respected music magazine (God is in the TV) 2.31.105.116 (talk) 22:32, 31 December 2016 (UTC) — 2.31.105.116 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Deletion seems unnecessary and article should remain. 2.31.105.116 (talk) 22:22, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You souldn't vote twice (or three times, if you are Minisixx, which seems likely.) Edgeweyes (talk) 12:07, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This was intended as an additional edit not a second vote. Have deleted 'keep' and added to above.2.31.105.116 (talk) 19:42, 02 January 2016 (UTC) — 2.31.105.116 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note to closer: The IP 2.31.105.116 first edit was on Dec 27, 2016 with a total of 7 edits- all concerning this article. [1] CBS527^Talk 14:50, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Creator of the page was not informed of intention to delete. Also, with new information such as the screening of the St Day Road film at the Polytechnic cinema in Falmouth, individual has become more noteworthy still with this new secondary source. Minisixx (talk) 22:37, 31 December 2016 (UTC) — Minisixx (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

This is incorrect. I did inform the creator of the article here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:82.152.151.198&oldid=757577046. Edgeweyes (talk) 12:07, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:12, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a case of WP:TOOSOON. Article sounds too promotional and does not pass WP:GNG. Bandcamp EPs are self-released, fails the criteria under WP:MUSIC. Karst (talk) 14:17, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:28, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails [WP:GNG]]. Per nom. Google and NYT searches provides nothing to establish notability. CBS527^Talk 04:13, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - GNG threshold not met. I was unable to find Substantial Coverage in Reliable, Independent Sources Exemplo347 (talk) 08:17, 15 January 2017 (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.