Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gavin Kostick

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. Sandstein 23:13, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gavin Kostick[edit]

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

I declined BLP, but I do have some concerns, so let see what other editors have to say. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 11:42, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:47, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:47, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:47, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable individual lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. References are an article written by subject, single line entries, listings and one does not even mention subject. Seems to have a good body of work, but lacks support to establish WP:NN. reddogsix (talk) 17:36, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am guessing the article subject had a hand in this. I removed this source written by the article subject, which was used twice and inserted separately to puff things up. All in all there may be a hint of notability but it has been drowned out by dozens of poor quality event announcements, autobiographical sources and other non-RS items.104.163.148.25 (talk) 00:35, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Firstly, I think it would be valuable to obtain feedback from other Irish editors. It might be less evident to those outside of Ireland that the awards listed in the article are - in my view - noteworthy and the references in national newspapers like the Irish Times are far from trivial. They certainly satisfy the Wikipedia:Notability test for reliability and independence. This discussion, has, at least spurred me on to find more references and I've nearly doubled them in comparison to the original article. So while I've spent much more time on this than I planned, I believe it is much improved. In particular, I've added the scholarly response to the subject's play, The Ash Fire, which - as I've now put in the article - was noted for its important multicultural dimension. Perhaps reddogsix would care to revisit his opinion in the light of these additions and in the light of the spirit of the policy that: Prod and WP:AfD are only suitable if an entire page has one of these issues and cannot likely be improved. JimHolden (talk) 00:34, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There were three Irish Times sources. The one listed above was written by the article subject, so it is irrelevant and has been deleted form the article. Another is simply an awards listing. The third is a little better, but still does not amount to SIGCOV as it is about the play series and says little about our article subject.104.163.148.25 (talk) 02:03, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:47, 3 March 2018 (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.