Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Jones (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 redirect‎ to Fireman Sam. ✗plicit 23:32, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

David Jones (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)

After dealing with an edit war over removing a negative sentence that, to be fair, had a source… I’m left looking at a two line BLP. Sources aren’t being found to expand this… so why does it need to continue to exist? Courcelles (talk) 21:10, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 21:16, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For sure Delete. It obviously doesn't meet the notability guidelines for a living person and as stated in the original AfD, not enough sources are being found. e (talk) 21:18, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fireman Sam - as Jones's most known significant work CiphriusKane (talk) 21:21, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Delete I can't even find the books this guy has written via a search engine, much less secondary sources. It's been tagged as not being shown to be notable for 8 years, no one will miss this. Snowmanonahoe (talk) 21:21, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. In retrospect, the edit war was indeed overblown and it looks like that I (among others) missed the big picture... And to make things worse, of those 50 words in the article, I'm not even sure that the book referenced was written by the article's subject, or an entirely different David Jones. — That Coptic Guy (let's talk?) 21:26, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Overall fails to meet reference independent of the subject.NP83 (talk) 21:34, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fireman Sam. Subject lacks sources for a stand alone article, but will fit into this article. WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"'; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV).
Redirect to Fireman Sam. As above, only high quality sources should be used. Equine-man (talk) 14:48, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect WP:CHEAP Lightburst (talk) 18:22, 23 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.