Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Doyle (critic)

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 keep. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:12, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John Doyle (critic)

[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)

There are no signification third party sources supporting this person's notability. Secondary source for them did not bring up any since the page was originally labelled years ago. Also, several accounts with his name, likely sockpuppets, see the entry's talk page. Quick, Spot the Quetzalcoatl! (talk) 05:33, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. – The Grid (talk) 15:05, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. – The Grid (talk) 15:05, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Has two books each with more than two reviews, which is borderline for WP:NAUTHOR. That plus coverage of questionable comments he has made pushes this over the top for me. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:09, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:10, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are several third-party sources here representing third-party analysis of his significance, such as independent critical reviews of his two books. I'll grant that the two citations to his own employer aren't ideal, and that the article could use some further improvement, but other coverage does exist to improve the article with and what's already here is already enough to cover off the basic issue of demonstrating that he would pass WP:CREATIVE as a writer. Possible COI editing by Doyle himself or members of his family is not in and of itself reason for deletion, if notability is otherwise already properly demonstrated. And yeah, there was that "Dan Levy is fey" thing, too. Bearcat (talk) 16:11, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did not consider that someone could be notable purely for their insulting comments and impugning of the reputation of others. Kind seems like WP:COAT to me, but hey, get it - maybe a bit less of a hagiography then is in order. Quick, Spot the Quetzalcoatl! (talk) 02:57, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are quite a bit of insightful sources that pertain to the subject. More sources would be better, as the subject barely meets criteria for notability, especially for WP:NAUTHOR. Multi7001 (talk) 04:02, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources look good and extensive - and international. But really - he has been Canada's leading TV critic for decades. There seems to be a fail here of WP:COMMONSENSE. Nfitz (talk) 16:47, 8 November 2021 (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.