Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Damien Walter


 * 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. Favonian (talk) 10:42, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Damien Walter

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article is subject to claims of libel and a request for deletion from the subject. Looking at the first and last 'good versions' of the article, all references are from the subject himself. Biographical information is extremely limited, no notable works are mentioned, and no real claims of notability are made about the subject. -- zzuuzz (talk) 09:49, 22 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Non-notable blogger so WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE applies. Sro23 (talk) 09:56, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * it can be very unfair and insulting to describe someone who is a long-term columnist with major reliable sources -- the Guardian and whatever -- as a "non-notable blogger". It turns out that he is not notable at the present time, but actually he is not merely a "blogger" like thousands of others, but indeed a professional writer and quite well regarded. Not notable, but still Wikipedia should make sure to be polite. The article should be deleted per his request and per a lack of clear evidence of Wikipedia's requirements for WP:GNG. MPS1992 (talk) 20:41, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm very sorry. He's been described as both writer and blogger, so it really wasn't my intention to cause offense. Sro23 (talk) 21:09, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * actually you are correct. Perhaps I was misunderstanding "blogger" to have a negative overtone that it does not actually have. I have struck my comment above. MPS1992 (talk) 17:03, 24 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:AUTHOR. Unable to locate reliable secondary sources to support notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:31, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete While being a columnist can be the basis of notability, we lack sources to show his writing has received the attention to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:12, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Per all the reasons given above. Safiel (talk) 17:22, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 21:47, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Alas I have to go with the deletes. I saw this mooted on Jimbo's page and wanted to come up with an excuse to keep, but the versions I see going back are all based on articles *by* Walter not *about* him, save for a Guardian profile which is clearly not independent of the article subject.  Recommend that if someone honestly wants to cover Guardian writers - which seems like a desirable thing we could have a place for - then instead of having a standalone article, get some kind of sources together that talk about them in general, then have a table of regular contributors, with some little blurbs around them.  But note that just because someone suggests future sci-fi has gay themes in it  doesn't count as biographical information about the author unless you have an unambiguous self-identification, and I didn't notice any at all.  I also note the closest thing to a biography I found looking in searches was a blurb on "monster hunter nation" by some writer with a personal dispute over him because he thinks the guy put words in his mouth.  If someone in that camp is carrying this nonsense over to Wikipedia, please don't - to the rest of the world it looks like a tempest in a teapot, one that you should easily be able to settle with (at most) a handshake and a joint statement of clarification. Wnt (talk) 22:47, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:44, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:44, 24 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep I've added more references for this article and feel there may be enough for a stub article for this subject. Full disclosure, I am the original creator of this article.  Going by the subject's website he seems to have written quite a few articles for some major publications.  This article definitely needs to be improved and expanded, but, as I said, I feel now there's enough for a stub Wikipedia entry. Neptune&#39;s Trident (talk) 16:40, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * All the recently added references suffer from the same problem as the original references, as explained by Wnt and others, in that they are written by the subject and not written by others about the subject. No one here is denying that the subject has written pieces published in some popular locations. The question to answer is, who else has been discussing them? -- zzuuzz (talk) 16:58, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * With article keep/delete decisions, it's important to understand WP:GNG, i.e. the phrase people came up with: "a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Now usually we don't have the situation here when we invoke that last part - usually somebody has published a bunch of articles, a commercial website or whatever, and they want an article about themselves on Wikipedia to drum up their profile, and we have to tell them no, not unless we have some independent coverage of who you are so we can paint a fair(ish) picture.  To have the author saying kill my article is unusual and makes the deletion less unpleasant to do.  A profile by your employer or an article you wrote isn't an independent biography of your life.  I think we're in "snow" delete territory now, no sense putting it off longer. Wnt (talk) 13:43, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Now that everything controversial has been taken out, there's no there there. Bearian (talk) 19:30, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete sans prejudice At this point he appears to be more personal opinion writer than noted journalist at best.   Collect (talk) 16:53, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Notability could probably be established given some effort, but given that the article appears to have become a magnet for vandals and wikipedia isn't really interested or capable of keeping them off it I don't think the effort would be worthwhile. A pity really. Artw (talk) 01:15, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete: Subject fails WP:JOURNALIST and WP:GNG. I disagree with your comment that Wikipedia is not interested or incapable of maintaining this yet another article. I tried to find independent coverage of this person (google and highbeam); but found none. Do you know of any such coverage? List them here, and I'll change my !vote to keep.  Anup   [Talk]  03:53, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Either way, the effort to prove otherwise is simply not worth it on a low profile article that nethertheless draws dedicated harassers. Artw (talk) 15:26, 27 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as completely failing any notability guideline. I found zero coverage of this individual in any reliable sources, and the place where he has done most of his writing (The Guardian) is not always considered a reliable source, either. About the closest thing to notability I can find is that he was awarded several years ago some stipend or other from the British government to write a book, which has yet to be produced. I see nothing which indicates any sort of notability sufficient to keep the article. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 05:52, 27 October 2016 (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.