Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Bambery


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. After being relisted three times and listed at AFD for 28 days, there's no consensus to delete. (non-admin closure) Dusti*Let's talk!* 13:15, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Chris Bambery
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Multiple issues unaddressed in article for multiple years. Fails WP:NPOL and also WP:NOTEWORTHY. Let&#39;srun (talk) 19:52, 29 June 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:02, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Scotland. Shellwood (talk) 21:11, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Journalism.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:47, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Bambery clearly does not pass WP:NPOL, but may pass WP:AUTHOR based on the reviews cited in the article and those elsewhere such as this (http not https). The article is very promotional, but as I said when I contested WP:PROD deletion in 2021 there are less promotional versions in the history. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:53, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 23:11, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Clearly does not pass WP:NPOL. Among Bambery's books, "The Second World War: A Marxist History" was extensively reviewed in the Marxist press but doesn't seem to have been picked up by mainstream reviewers. "Catalonia Reborn" was the same story.  "A Rebel's Guide to Gramsci" is, at 64 pages, more a pamphlet than a book. "A People's History of Scotland" was reviewed in both The Scotsman and The Herald but I couldn't find any other reviews in the major press. The two reviews of "A People's History of Scotland" are probably not enough to pass WP:AUTHOR. On the whole, my !vote would be Delete. Fiachra10003 (talk) 18:12, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * <p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Relisting comment: Final relist Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 23:25, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. Seems to meet WP:AUTHOR's requirement of having created a significant or well-known work that has been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. Just looking at the People's History of Scotland, we have at least Monthly Review, Scottish Affairs, The Herald, The Scotsman. I am not aware of any policy-based reason for excluding Marxist periodicals, but even so that would only knock out the Monthly Review. Article is a mess but AFD is not cleanup and draftification is unlikely to lead to improvement. -- Visviva (talk) 04:12, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * <p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep. Passes WP:AUTHOR criterion 3, as well explained by @Visviva above, but for the utter avoidance of doubt, I've created A People's History of Scotland. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;background-image:linear-gradient(45deg,Red,Orange,Yellow,Green,Blue,Purple);color:transparent;background-clip:text;-webkit-background-clip:text">CT55555 (talk) 02:40, 21 July 2023 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.