Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Wylie (author)

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 no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:22, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

David Wylie (author)

[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)

Wrote one book and some technical manuals and self published childrens books. News hits and reviews don't show anything I could definitively link to this subject, and none of them refer to him as an author, or an attorney. Fails WP:AUTHOR, and WP:GNG FrederalBacon (talk) 05:34, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. FrederalBacon (talk) 05:34, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: has received extensive significant coverage in newspapers like the The Boston Globe as a politician, attorney, and author: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. ––FormalDude talk 08:36, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No comment on this particular individual's notability, but in such a case, the Boston Globe is considered to be a WP:LOCAL source. Curbon7 (talk) 02:35, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That essays states that Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. ––FormalDude talk 03:06, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just because the Boston Globe covers something from Boston does not necessarily confer the same umfph as if it was the Boston Globe covering something from another area. My local newspaper has coverage of the two-bit city councilguy, and of the restaurant down the street; this does not indicate that these are significant. Same vein, no matter how large or national the newspaper is, they still cover local stories and things of local interest. Curbon7 (talk) 03:16, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fair, but Wylie has been covered in non-local coverage across multiple newspapers, including for running for state senate. ––FormalDude talk 03:31, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The last part of that wouldn't meet WP:POLITICIANS. I also don't know what exactly these articles are since they're behind a paywall. If they show SIGCOV, that's cool, but I couldn't find anything on this guy. FrederalBacon (talk) 03:36, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have access for free via the TWL, which you should be able to acquire as well. And that one source alone would not be enough to meet WP:POLITICIANS, but there are at least two other sources which cover him as a regional politician that I think would be enough to pass. ––FormalDude talk 03:40, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:41, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Politics, and Massachusetts. ––FormalDude talk 21:58, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:13, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've significantly cleaned up the article and added sources for most all the content. ––FormalDude (talk) 11:36, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at it, I still don't necessarily see SIGCOV. Looks like most of the articles are local news/city council coverage. Even his guest article based around his book is on "Wicked Local Cambridge". While I find myself wanting to read his book after reading his guest article, I still don't think he meets GNG. FrederalBacon (talk) 02:58, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No offense but I doubt your ability to accurately assess GNG when you don't have access to a majority of the sources. ––FormalDude (talk) 04:46, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:05, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I believe "sigcov" means that the subject must be directly talked about in a source, not just being mentioned as an event participant or other incidental appearance. It does not have anything to do with which regions is the subject known in. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 18:29, 8 September 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.