Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maxim Jakubowski

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. Sandstein 20:02, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maxim Jakubowski[edit]

[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 doesn't appear to be any significant, independent coverage of this critic/author. He's got the same Guardian bio paragraph as every other person who's worked there, and this Crime Writers' Association page (again, a site hyping one of its own).[1] Elsewhere, I turned up brief namechecks of a few of his little-known books (nothing specifically about him), generic database listings, regurgitated press releases, and interviews with minor sites - hardly "significant coverage" that "addresses the topic directly and in detail" (WP:GNG).

Jakubowski is a prolific writer, but not a notable one. That he felt the need to largely write and puff up his own Wikipedia article[2][3] says something about how famous he is. No harm to the bloke, but he shouldn't have an article. Shadikk (talk) 15:34, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:44, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:44, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:44, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:44, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:44, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:44, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:44, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:45, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:07, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Crime Writers' Association does not appear to be a major organization (the article has notability problems itself), and neither does its award seem to be major. I don't think it is sufficient. Not seeing media coverage of him, not too mention literary analysis and like. I think this is the case of an author that can merit a Wikidata entry, but not a Wikipedia one. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:25, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and speedy close. You know, WP:BEFORE is a thing, as is WP:COMPETENCE, neither of which is much in evidence here. It is a moment's work to discover that, for example, the Crime Writers' Association is a highly notable national writers organization, or that Jakubowski's books are regularly reviewed, some rather widely reviewed, or that he has a relatively lengthy entry in The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction, or that the positions he holds in various literary associations demonstrate his stature and the esteem he is held in in various fields. The article is less than adequate, but the comments here are remarkably poorly informed and thoroughly nonconstructive. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 23:33, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- "Significant coverage" that "addresses the topic directly and in detail". Care to point to it? Shadikk (talk) 00:14, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I did. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 02:16, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He easily meets WP:NAUTHOR#3, "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a ... collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of ... multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." There are reviews of his work dating from 1980 in UK, US, Canadian and Australian newspapers like the Atlanta Constitution, The Age, The Los Angeles Times, The Ottawa Citizen, The Guardian, The Daily Telegraph, Financial Times, etc, etc, plus journals like Journal of Social History and The Times Literary Supplement. There are articles about him and his bookshop in The Daily Telegraph and The Times. They could easily be added to the article. RebeccaGreen (talk) 07:12, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:03, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject meets WP:NAUTHOR criteria. His work is reviewed. Wm335td (talk) 20:22, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.NotButtigieg (talk) 10:59, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject easily meets WP:NAUTHOR. Google has some news coverage.-Nocturnal306^talk 21:40, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:GNG. Good sourcing. Notable work within his field.BabbaQ (talk) 09:09, 12 January 2020 (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.