Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gavin Harper

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. Davewild (talk) 17:47, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gavin Harper

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

A young author who has been fairly prolific with his contributions to specialist publisher McGraw's "Evil Genius" series. His other books are co-authored. Apart from the cited Independent article (2006) I can't see any other coverage about him or any of his books. Fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. Sionk (talk) 13:29, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

wait, can there be 2 Gavin D. J. Harpers in similar tech fields, both the same age? Because there is this [1], and I presume that he is the fellow interviewed here

[2]and described in 2014 as working with the "West Welsh Energy Sector Training project at Glyndwr University, Wales" If it is the same chap, and he paid the rent while earning the PhD by writing Evil Genius books, then one understands why thThe Telegraph profiled him and it's probably a keeper. If.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:45, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep It's the same guy.[3]E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:45, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

more: [4], [5],

Really? And surely you realise source 5 is his own self-published CV. WP:GNG requires strong evidence of multiple reliable news/book coverage about the subject. Sure, he was the subject of the news article in The Independent in 2006. The Daily Mail article (source 2) above is about an explosion at Luton Airport where Harper was passing by, so not about him at all. Someone has to do more than write/co-write some books before getting a Wikipedia profile. Sionk (talk) 20:30, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well of course it's self-published. It's a CV. Look, I didn't mean to imply that the article about delays at Heathrow contributed to notability. I started with the page, which made him sound like a self-taught buff who wrote popular books. I ran a routine search just to make sure, found the Heathrow thing which made me look harder. As in, with all of his initials. And he became noteworthy. A young technology expert with an unusual back story (attested by that 2006 profile in The Independent) Whose popular books got some attention (and sold) And who is now embarked on a career of significant accomplishment (attested by the CV, but also at the veritably published articles), although still very young. He looks notable to me.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:58, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:50, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I found one other article on him - an interview in a small eco publication [6]. The Independent article is not terribly strong, IMO. I can find links to online book sites, and a few blog posts, but nothing substantial. Although an interesting character, I'm going for weak delete but it's not far from weak keep. LaMona (talk) 22:33, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:51, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:26, 6 May 2015 (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.