Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Adamson

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. Tone 19:05, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Adamson[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)

Not notable. Doesn't meet WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:AUTHOR Roller26 (talk) 01:34, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 01:34, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If his works actually had come to be seen as important, we would have much better sourcing on him.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:25, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per WP:NAUTHOR: [1] (2-page review); [2] (1-paragraph review); and [3] (1-paragraph review). Reluctant to rely too heavily on the latter, but they are indexed on JSTOR which to my knowledge is discriminating as to what it indexes. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 20:07, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 20:08, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 20:08, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AleatoryPonderings, JSTOR indexes 12 million articles, I don't think that just 3 articles reviewing your work (2 of which are 1 paragraph based) is enough to be considered notable under WP:AUTHOR criteria. -- Roller26 (talk) 14:25, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. His Marx Brothers book is very notable, a search will bring up sources for it, but that book does not have an article. If that book had its own article, maybe the article for the author would be unnecessary? Donaldd23 (talk) 14:55, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow discussion of possible merger or renaming
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 18:03, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ keep ~~as well~~, especially because of the Marx Brothers book, which Vanity Fair and RogerEbert.com have praised. Caro7200 (talk) 18:22, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews exist for his other books--the Los Angeles Times reviewed the Walter Lantz book, just to mention one, so keeping this article under the Joe Adamson name would seem to be appropriate. Caro7200 (talk) 18:30, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sources pass WP:GNG per comments from Caro7200 Donaldd23 AleatoryPonderings, [4] puts it over the top for me. // Timothy :: talk 13:52, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it has been shown in this discussion that his works have been reviewed in reliable sources such as The LA Times and academic journals so that he passes WP:NAUTHOR criteria 4 (c), in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:56, 30 August 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.