Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/G. Winston James

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. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 15:28, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

G. Winston James[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a writer, not supported by adequate reliable source coverage. Of the five references here, two of his own books are referenced to their buy-me pages on amazon.com and another two of his own books are referenced to their publicity profiles on the website of their own publisher -- making them primary sources that cannot confer notability -- and the one source that does actually represent independent media coverage is a blurb, which is not substantive enough to carry WP:GNG by itself as an article's only reliable source. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if much better sourcing can be shown. Bearcat (talk) 17:07, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:46, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, with Encouragement to Fix. This writer is obviously notable and is part of an underrepresented population on Wikipedia. Plus this article was created during this past Saturday's editathon, so I think every effort should be made to (a) keep the article and (b) encourage the editor of the article to add further citations. It would've been preferrable to not put this in the AfD queue and just leave the needing better citations notice up IMO. I see a lot of articles up on Wikipedia with 2 or 3 citations that are specious at best and they aren't pulled down. Please be kind and patient with this new enthusiastic editor. Best, BrillLyle (talk) 23:59, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neither the fact that a person happens to be a member of a minority group, nor the fact that the article was created in an editathon, grants the topic an exemption from having to be reliably sourced well-enough to satisfy WP:GNG. The way to get an inadequate article kept is to at least show that better sources actually exist — actually improving the article itself with those sources would be ideal, but at least showing the results of a search for sourcing in this discussion would count too. But we don't keep inadequately sourced articles, particularly when they're WP:BLPs, just because somebody thinks improved sourcing might become possible, members of minority groups don't get special exemptions from our sourcing and notability requirements just because minority, and editathons aren't exempted from having to follow the same editing and formatting and sourcing rules as everybody else. Bearcat (talk) 19:38, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~weak keep~~ with encouragement to article creator to improve article. Poetry is one of the most difficult areas at AFD. There is a small circle of critics and publishers of contemporary poetry in English (in certain other languages (Arabic; Persian) poets have mass audiences). But in English, poetry is an arcane taste, that is nevertheless highly esteemed and followed by publishers, critics, and academics who specialize in academic poetry, and publication and recognition are intensely competitive; see Sherman Alexie. ~~In is within this context that I support keeping C. Winston James.~~ And advising him, his fans and/or his publicist to improve the page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:21, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:41, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure - the problem with the above comments are that there are few - if any - mentions in reliable independent secondary sources. If someone can show some then this wouldn't be a problem, but the fact that he is writing in a minority form does not seem to me to be enough to wave the need to be noticed by someone before a page here can be written. JMWt (talk) 09:35, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This [1] was t hit that encouraged me to write as I did above, revisiting, I findonly stuff like a bookstore reading [2], micro press publication [3], so, although I have a weak spot for poetry, I have to agree with User:JMWt and change my opinion to delete.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:05, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:11, 24 February 2016 (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.