Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Clark (writer)

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 no consensus. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:50, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Clark (writer)

[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)

Should be (SPEEDY?) deleted under WP:BE alone as the article was created by a subsequently blocked sockpuppet The Good Dante (talk · contribs) of the prolific puppetmaster is BarehamOliver (talk · contribs). Only substantial contributions since creation have been another BarehamOliver sockpuppet account Classic Middlesex (talk · contribs). However, the article has been linked into other articles by other BarehamOliver sockpuppets. One might even suspect some COI here between the subject of the article and the various sock accounts. 10mmsocket (talk) 17:04, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Crime, Police, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:14, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I feel that the repeated references in the newspapers plus the ITV documentary (I'm not necessarily calling two episodes a series but clearly people are taking note of Clark's work) take him over the WP:AUTHOR threshold of a "significant or well-known work or collective body of work".
Regarding WP:BE, I note that edits by sockpuppets and blocked accounts don't necessarily need to be reverted and this doesn't feel like simply a puff piece. --Mgp28 (talk) 17:56, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, $Salvio giuliano$ 17:41, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sourcing seems fine, seems to write about fringe-type things, has ample coverage. The BBC series about some of his series would seem to be critical notice of his works. Oaktree b (talk) 17:53, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: BLP Fails GNG and BIO. The article is refbombed with promo, brief mentions in articles about other subjects, interviews, etc. Discussion above shows nothing meets IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth, and mentions no reason in policy or guidelines for keeping, or addresses WP:BLP issues. BEFORE showed nothing that helps meeting GNG or BIO, just more of the same. BLPs need clearly IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability to avoid abuse per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV). // Timothy :: talk 20:29, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:39, 2 April 2023 (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.