Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/C. M. Taylor


 * 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.  Sandstein  18:40, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

C. M. Taylor

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Promotional article, with content written by two SPAs. Scanty evidence of notability; it's mostly a WP:REFBOMB of trivial and primary sources, and nothing up to the standards of WP:NAUTHOR or WP:GNG. A WP:BEFORE shows a few news mentions of other people of the same name, and nothing I could find about this C. M. Taylor. Definitely not enough independent third-party RS biographical coverage for a WP:BLP. David Gerard (talk) 10:12, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 10:12, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 10:12, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  13:18, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 11:44, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 16:12, 2 September 2021 (UTC) I get that he hasn't won the Booker Prize or been the subject of someone's dissertation, but it wouldn't take long to find plenty of Wikipedia pages about more obscure people than this. Is the point that more of the info in the article needs to be corroborated through online sources?
 * There is more info about C.M. Taylor at https://publishing.brookes.ac.uk/staff/details/taylor/ and https://www.retreatwest.co.uk/about/ and https://www.duckworthbooks.co.uk/fb-author/c-m-taylor/ - as well as the original references to sources such as The Independent. Given this author has established a varied body of work and is a lecturer at the UK's main publishing degree course (information which was not difficult to find) it seems unreasonable to delete this entry. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hatmandu (talk • contribs) — Hatmandu (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Are any of these independent media coverage? You're alluding to sources, but not actually stating them. Does independent third-party sourcing verifiably exist? None of the three links there provide any such information at all - David Gerard (talk) 19:30, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * How about:
 * https://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2015/aug/07/joy-of-six-fictional-football (Taylor/Premiership Psycho mentioned in a Guardian article)
 * https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/reviews/premiership-psycho-c-m-taylor-2198406.html (book review, The Independent)
 * I'm not sure I really understand the precise criteria you're after here, but some other links relating to Taylor and his work:
 * More on the project with the British Library: https://blogs.bl.uk/english-and-drama/2018/11/c-m-taylor-on-keystroke-logging-project-with-british-library.html
 * Scriptwriting entry at IMDb: https://www.imdb.com/name/nm6778230/?ref_=tt_ov_wr
 * Reference to Taylor's writing here: https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg25133490-300-inventive-podcast-reviewed-packed-with-barrier-breaking-engineers/ (NewScientist magazine)
 * Author interview online, https://www.thewoventalepress.net/2017/04/10/interview-cm-taylor/
 * The precise criteria are set out at WP:NAUTHOR, as linked up there in the deletion nomination. Do the above links meet this criterion? It's a straightforward enough question - David Gerard (talk) 10:05, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I have edited and improved the page now, hopefully - I have taken out various bits of puffery and added more references. I think a key criterion of notability here is the British Library project (described in The Bookseller - https://www.thebookseller.com/futurebook/british-library-recorded-every-keystroke-it-took-write-novel-now-data-out-911471 - as a "unique literary project", and there is plenty of discussion of this online (eg https://thingscapeofdigitalhumanities.wordpress.com/2018/12/12/c-m-taylor-and-digital-discrete-drafts/) - it is also referenced in an EU study (https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/794164/reporting)
 * - Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd (via summary).
 * --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 10 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. The Independent review and the blog post from the official blog of the British Library] is good R.S. toward meeting criteria of WP:NAUTHOR. The Guardian piece is essentially a rehash of The Independent review, but with a new application so it could be considered a third piece of RS towards that criteria as well. The sum of all of the other marginal coverage in combination with these is enough to pass NAUTHOR.4meter4 (talk) 15:55, 10 September 2021 (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.