Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Cooper (author) (2nd nomination)

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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:50, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Cooper (author)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Blatant self-promotional page written in an unencyclopedic format with no reliable sources. This was speedily deleted in December 2012 but the named author decided to unilaterally recreate it. 𝓛𝓲𝓰𝓱𝓽𝓼𝓹𝓮𝓬𝓼 (talk) 01:56, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:43, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:43, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:43, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – per Tokyogirl79 at the first Afd. Nothing changed since then. Mathglot (talk) 06:33, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as worldcat shows 1600 library holdings which is an indicator of notability suggesting his works should have been reviewed and the external links shows one reliable source review in the Canadian military journal, Atlantic306 (talk) 17:48, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The results aren't all his; "Tom Cooper" isn't an uncommon name. Regardless of how many works he authored, we need reliable sources that talk about him, not ones merely written by him himself, as the Canadian military journal review is. 𝓛𝓲𝓰𝓱𝓽𝓼𝓹𝓮𝓬𝓼 (talk) 23:45, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,

talk) 08:31, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete per
Wikipedia's Notability Guidelines. This kind of article is always a difficult one, since it seems there's a common sense argument for importance of the subject matter based on the large body of work he seems to have produced. Looking at this article I'm guessing he IS actually notable as an author. But the problem is that I'm guessing. I don't know. Wikipedia requires cited evidence of notability of an author, based on multiple secondary sources in which the author is the subject of that source. Until those sources are provided in this article, it is not eligible to remain in Wikipedia's main namespace. -Markeer 12:59, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per User:Markeer. If somebody thinks he's notable, they can come up with the sources to prove it. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:28, 10 September 2019 (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.