Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas London (author)

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. apparent consensus DGG ( talk ) 01:57, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas London (author)

Thomas London (author) (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)

This is an author who appears to have produced only self-published works. Admittedly one of those works has received notable attention, and he produced a film that premiered at a notable indie film event, but I am not seeing

• Keep: I have removed the IMDB reference and added valid references to this page [1] which show that the film referenced screened at more than one festival (Arpa). The film also appears to show at Valley film festival ^[2], and at Cannes film festival ^[3]. The creation of multiple notable works should make this author notable Victory1996 (talk) 07:07, 11 April 2017 (UTC) — Victory1996 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

You don't seem to understand the deletion rationale above. The fact that his short film has been merely screened anywhere does not make him notable. Exactly what part of

significant coverage of this person (not one or two of his works) in reliable independent sources? ~Anachronist (talk) 07:12, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Double-voted in error, see comment beleow.Delete inadequate sources found. Perhaps
  WP:TOOSOON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:24, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete
  WP:NOTSOAPBOX and also delete his novel Splintered: A Political Fairy Tale (novel). A book needs a minimum of 3 reviews to merit a page based on review alone, and I'm not at all sure Pub Weekly and Kirkus count. this book, however, although published in 2015 - which should have made it easy to search for, appears to have sunk with barely a ripple. His indy film got into a couple of film festivals, but there appears to have been no coverage of either the film or the book. Here's a google search on the book title: [1], on the film title: Rain + "Thomas London" [2], and a gNews search on "Thomas London" [3]. We should delete him and his book.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:52, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Oh, gosh, just noticed that I had run a quick search and quick opinon on this last week. Had forgottenthat completely when I spotted it today while looking at the list of Author-related deletions. I stand behind both of my opinions, but I guess I'll s the shorter one.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:00, 4 May 2017 (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.