Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angus Watson


 * 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. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 09:56, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Angus Watson

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Blatantly fails WP:AUTHOR. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 13:11, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  Pishcal  — ♣ 13:25, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  Everymorning   talk  13:47, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Return to draft unless and until better sources are found. I had better note that the article creator originally seems to have created the article in Draft space, had it turned down at AfC on 20 February and then created this article from a slightly improved version, without putting it through AfC again, on 27 February. Since then, the creator has significantly improved the article, even if not to the point where it yet proves notability. Meanwhile, the subject of the article, apparently quite independently of the article's creator, has tried adding a few references to the draft, submitted that to AfC and had it turned down. In effect, while there is still a draft version in existence, this version is better than the draft. Going back to the main question: I don't find the subject blatantly non-notable - publication by a publisher of the size of Orbit Books is more than most non-notable, and some notable, authors manage, and in my opinion the review by SF Crowsnest would count towards notability if there were other reviews from sources of comparable or greater stature. But, while both Locus and Tor.com have included Age of Iron on forthcoming publications lists, it doesn't (at least yet) seem to have a full review from either. But he has managed well so far for a first novel and, with two sequels due out in the next few months, I think that there is a good chance - though far from a certainty - that either they (or further publicity for the first novel, for instance, if it gets onto any significant awards shortlists) could push the subject over the notability threshold. But on current evidence, he isn't there yet. PWilkinson (talk) 22:42, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Will defer to editors decision but worth pointing out that Locus, Tor.com are US-Centric sources to cite whereas Publishers Weekly, SF Crowsnest, Fantasy Faction (where it was a Best of 2014 title) are more recognised elsewhere. Yeine  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:25, 17 March 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:47, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * possible keep there is a fantasy fiction world, which has paid attention to this rookie author's first novel in a projected trilogy. I take User:Yeine's point about sites such as Fantasy Faction validating notability within a large community. Would feel more confidence in my vote if User:Yeine or someone else would edit the hype out of the article now, source assertion that he was/is a working freelance journalist of some scope, and find a source stating that he has a publishing contract for the second (and third) novel in the trilogy.  He has a pub. date for 2nd novel and it may therefore make sense to close as NO CONSENSUS while we wait and see what attention that garners.  (Also,  Angus Watson is not an easy name to search.  there is even a journalist named Angus Watson who made headlines  but who isn't this journalist named Angus Watson.)E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:17, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * 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.