Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/D. F. Lewis


 * 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:00, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

D. F. Lewis

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:AUTHOR, language somewhat promotional and largely unsourced BLP. -  C HAMPION  (talk) (contributions) (logs) 03:26, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -  C HAMPION  (talk) (contributions) (logs) 03:27, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -  C HAMPION  (talk) (contributions) (logs) 03:27, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:35, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete over the top promotional article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:09, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:37, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Does not meet WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG. He has some coverage in the world of small press publication (blogs and private websites as well as print), and has himself been published extensively in small press and self-published format as well as some stories in anthologies from bigger publishers. But that is not sufficient: there's a lack of reviews or other critical commentary in reliable sources (which would include newspapers, magazines from major publishers, academic sources, independent websites with a proper editorial structure, etc), no evidence of major awards, and no indication of importance outside of a small, self-regarding world. Nemonymous should also be considered for deletion for its lack of coverage by independent third parties. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:53, 11 September 2017 (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.