Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan Janes

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:03, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:03, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:03, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

• Keep I strongly urge page creator User:Brunierlikan to return and source this article, but 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.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. Brunierlikan (talk) 19:05, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

• Keep because the person is notable and meet the notability guidelines. There are many independent reliable sources where the subject has been discussed. Having worked extensively in many major television series since 1973 certainly add to notability as well! Brunierlikan (talk) 19:10, 23 October 2017 (UTC)