Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colin Sargent

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 . Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:30, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Sargent

[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)

Appears to be a vanity bio created and maintained either by the subject himself, or by people close to him (or both). A new editor stepped in last month who said they would fix shortcomings addressed in a PROD, but their added sources are mostly WP:RSSELF. One citation is from the subject's own magazine. I can find no material from reliable sources attesting to the subject's notability, aside from a review of one of their novels that was published in Boston.com. Subject does not appear to meet the threshold of either WP:NACADEMIC or WP:AUTHOR. CurryTime7-24 (talk) 20:04, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CurryTime7-24 (talk) 20:04, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wordy, self-promoting vani-spam. He seems like a prolific writer, but hasn't garnered critical attention, which is required for wiki. Just another working wordsmith. I can't find any critical reviews of anything he's authored. Oaktree b (talk) 20:31, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
His novel Museum of Human Beings was reviewed in Publishers Weekly. pburka (talk) 21:01, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Maine, and Virginia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:30, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There is a lack of strong significant coverage from reliable, independent sources directed at the individual subject. Multi7001 (talk) 02:23, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—even if the article needs some love, being the publisher of a notable periodical and the writer of a notable book make me lean keep as people are likely to be looking for info on him. BhamBoi (talk) 06:47, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey y'all, as the aforementioned "new editor," I'm going to reserve my vote. However, I do want to address the issues of sourcing and notability. I've included citations to several reviews of his books including the Virginian Pilot, Denver Post, Boston Globe, The Morning Star, Kirkus Reviews, Foreward Reviews, and the Washington City Paper. Thank you @Pburka for the lead on Publishers Weekly, as I hadn't seen that one. As far as the sources by the subject, perhaps this is a misunderstanding on my part. I was taught that citations were meant to show evidence of the claim being stated. Therefore, if someone was recorded to be an editor of a publication, it would make sense to show a connection to the actual publication where the subject was listed as editor. Maybe it makes more sense to have them as external links. Ravenandlotus (talk) 13:39, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Primary sources can be used to verify information once the threshold of notability is demonstrated, as long as the references in the article don't rely to heavily on info from the subject. BhamBoi (talk) 00:11, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This doesn’t seem like a notable person in the sense of meriting a Wiki article. The publication is one thing, but the person has not on his own earned verifiable notoriety. Go4thProsper (talk) 08:05, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: BLP, Fails GNG and BIO, WP:NACADEMIC, WP:NAUTHOR. There are not sources to support GNG. Sources in the article are primary and promo, nothing that meets IS, RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject (the author) directly and indepth. None of their works appears to have multiple reviews from IS, RS, and they look like a normal academic, nothing that would bypass GNG. BEFORE nothing that meets IS RS SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"'; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability to avoid abuse per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV).

I'd love to change to Keep, so if anyone adds multiple indepehdent reliable sources about the author to the article, let me know. // Timothy :: talk 09:17, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per TimothyBlue. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:09, 19 April 2023 (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.