Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony Hayward

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.

Anthony Hayward

Anthony Hayward (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Possible autobiography, or COI biography (the author appears to be a single-purpose account). Sources consist of primary sources, citations to the subject's own works, or citations to the subject's publisher. Questionable meeting

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:11, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:11, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:11, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep numerous in-depth reviews of his books (e.g. Variety) are cited in the article. The article does need some cleanup. Possibly (talk) 23:52, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I have done some cleanup and added about four more reviews e.g. this in the New Statesman and this in the Guardian). Multiple reviews of his collective body of work (the books) means he meets

WP:NAUTHOR point #3. Possibly (talk) 00:24, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

• Comment - this still needs a lot of work; several of the citations are by him, not about him. Bearian (talk) 21:49, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearian: I don't think that is correct. I count 4/18 of the cited sources as being authored by Hayward. The others are largely independent reviews about him. At least one other has the phrase "by Anthony Hayward" in its title, but is an independent review where the title refers to the work being reviewed. Possibly (talk) 23:21, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is correct that this page needs a lot of editing, even to be a "start"-level article. I would suggest to draftify it. Bearian (talk) 01:04, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearian: Why would we suddenly draftify a 2010 article that meets GNG? It's not in such bad shape. I'm honestly perpelexed at the effort to move someone who is clearly notable out of article space. This article is a clear-cut keep. Possibly (talk) 01:50, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because after 20 years, we have to value quality over quantity. Bearian (talk) 17:49, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Possibly. Draftification is inappropriate here -- for an article of this tenure, it would be a de facto G13. It's not the greatest article ever written, but I strongly disagree with the 'worse than a redlink' status that would justify quality-over-quantity deletion -- it's a usable resource for readers, even if puffy. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 12:53, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Week keep possibly enough to pass Basic #2. I added another reference to his work. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 13:03, 16 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.