Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan Janes: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
response
Line 14: Line 14:
:<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/England|list of England-related deletion discussions]]. [[User:Shawn in Montreal|Shawn in Montreal]] ([[User talk:Shawn in Montreal|talk]]) 13:03, 21 October 2017 (UTC)</small>
:<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/England|list of England-related deletion discussions]]. [[User:Shawn in Montreal|Shawn in Montreal]] ([[User talk:Shawn in Montreal|talk]]) 13:03, 21 October 2017 (UTC)</small>
*'''Keep''' I strongly urge page creator [[User:Brunierlikan]] to return and source this article, but [[WP:DINC|AfDISNOTCLEANUP]]. Book and news sources that Brunierlikan points to above, and claims in article strongly support notability. Just tag it for improvement, sourcing, perhaps ADVERT, and move on.[[User:E.M.Gregory|E.M.Gregory]] ([[User talk:E.M.Gregory|talk]]) 16:24, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' I strongly urge page creator [[User:Brunierlikan]] to return and source this article, but [[WP:DINC|AfDISNOTCLEANUP]]. Book and news sources that Brunierlikan points to above, and claims in article strongly support notability. Just tag it for improvement, sourcing, perhaps ADVERT, and move on.[[User:E.M.Gregory|E.M.Gregory]] ([[User talk:E.M.Gregory|talk]]) 16:24, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
::Sure, I will improve it more with sources but the I think the fact is producers and writers have always taken more of a back seat in terms of publicity/promotion than say actors. [[User:Brunierlikan|Brunierlikan]] ([[User talk:Brunierlikan|talk]]) 19:05, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:05, 23 October 2017

Alan Janes

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

Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO. Previously speedily deleted under G11. Edwardx (talk) 12:58, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please, check[1] or [2] etc. I think there are plenty of independent in-depth coverage available in reliable sources. I will expand it more. Thanks. --Brunierlikan (talk) 11:24, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We can all use a search engine. If you don't want this article to be deleted, then you need to cite the reliable sources that provide in-depth coverage specifically about Janes. And ensure the article itself complies with WP:NPOV. Edwardx (talk) 11:34, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For better and worse, that's not actually true. The quesiton at AfD is whether the subject of the article is notable, not whether it is well-written and adequately sourced. The exception to this rule is a case where the article is scurrilous or hopelessly POV, not the case here.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:27, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:20, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:03, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:03, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:03, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I will improve it more with sources but the I think the fact is producers and writers have always taken more of a back seat in terms of publicity/promotion than say actors. Brunierlikan (talk) 19:05, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]