Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Evans (writer)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 14:32, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John Evans (writer)[edit]

John Evans (writer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This whole article seems pretty WP:PEACOCK-y. According to Henrietta Lucks it isn't even accurate with regards to basic facts like the subject's birth year.

I have significant doubts about whether this meets WP:NAUTHOR. The article is almost entirely cited by primary sources. In my WP:BEFORE, I found this article (which calls him an "acclaimed writer").

For his works:

As to the reliability of WalesOnline, please refer to this RS/N discussion. It seems the consensus is that is reliable for regional coverage, but I am not sure that can pass the bar for establishing notability (especially considering WP:SPIP).

Overall, my position is that we should either delete for WP:TNT reasons if people think that the WalesOnline establishes general notability (I don't), or if you hold my opinion that it doesn't then we should delete because the subject fails WP:NAUTHOR. –MJLTalk 19:10, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. –MJLTalk 19:10, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. –MJLTalk 19:10, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. –MJLTalk 19:10, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. –MJLTalk 19:10, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I too was thinking about AfD or PRODding it but there is a claim to notability, winning the Whitbread Award award (now Costa Book Awards), which is notable. I am unable to reference that however. But, the claims of inaccuracy and obvious self-promotion, lends my support to delete at least under WP:TNT. Ifnord (talk) 19:20, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a bunch of fluffiness without adequate sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:35, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The full list of all past recipients of the Whitbread Awards can be found here. Evans' name is not amongst them. I can't say whether it's an entirely false claim, or whether it's a reference to some other award that was associated with the Whitbread brand, but it's clear he was not the recipient of one of these awards which would probably have been the strongest claim to notability. I've spent some time searching for sources, which has been difficult because the subject's name is quite a common one, which he shares with various different musicians and authors. The best I can come up with are a couple of short puffy WP:INTERVIEWs on Wales Online, and this short and less-than-glowing review of one of his books. I don't see a WP:GNG pass, or an WP:NAUTHOR pass, based on what I can find. GirthSummit (blether) 11:00, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    A couple of further thoughts. All of his books except for the Red Kite one are published by Underground Press which is (or was) operated by the subject - they're self-published. However: his personal website no longer seems to be functional, but the archived version references a number of substantial pieces about him - much of it in local press, but some of it in publications such as Time Out and Shortlist. I can't find any of them online, and don't know exact dates so they're not usable as refs, but assuming they're not outright fakes there's probably enough out there. I feel obliged to strike my delete !vote, as I think it likely that the subject is probably notable per GNG, but a lot of digging through print sources of the 90s/early 2000s would be needed to create a properly referenced article. GirthSummit (blether) 12:29, 11 February 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.