Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guy Mankowski


 * 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 keep.  Sandstein  09:40, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Guy Mankowski

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable author with no actual coverage anywhere to be found. CHRISSY MAD ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  22:17, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 00:59, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 00:59, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 00:59, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 00:59, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 00:59, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

*Clear Keep. Subject meets WP:ANYBIO and WP:CREATIVE. Significant proof in a range of reliable secondary source’s (Northern Echo, Journal and two Huff Post articles) and I note the article is well linked in a range of other Wikipedia pages. I have added further references from a book citing his work, an extensive interview with 3:am Magazine, a TV interview on the North East Arts and Culture Show and other secondary sources (externally edited reviews by Louder Than War and The Glasgow Review Of Books) Claracalderwood (talk) 08:58, 23 January 2018 (UTC) SOCKSTRIKE. Primefac (talk) 12:22, 26 January 2018 (UTC) *Strong Keep. Article gives plenty of indications of coverage and notability and subject meets meets WP:ANYBIO and WP:CREATIVE. Slightly surprised at the suggestion by the nominator. A quick search shows a rich spread of coverage in reliable sources on Google Search, Google Scholar, from Huffington Post to The Journal. CameronPage1 (talk) 04:21, 23 January 2018 (UTC) SOCKSTRIKE. Primefac (talk) 12:22, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. Worldcat lists the authors books in 140 libraries, and a recent title was given a New Writing North award yesterday which will increase that. Will mention this in references if I can be bothered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.22.140.252 (talk) 13:40, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep for the reasons mentioned above. Harut111 (talk) 12:47, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. About to add reference to recent New Writing North award which is what me brought me here and so must suggest independent coverage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.240.225.114 (talk) 14:11, 24 January 2018‎ (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. A good range of secondary, independent, extensive and edited links here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.44.208.63 (talk) 15:58, 24 January 2018‎ (UTC)
 * Commment I'm going to lump my response into one single comment. If he's as notable as the keepers here claim, please provide at least 2-3 independent sources which are non-trivial and cover him in-depth and I'll gladly withdraw my nomination. CHRISSY MAD  ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  18:47, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * So far not a single keep argument has shown or supplied evidence of notability via significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. If this were closed currently it would be deleted. &mdash; Coffee //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 15:22, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. Below are the multiple, independent and reliable sources. How are the first five in particular being so blithely dismissed? Are they not secondary, edited, independent, extensive and reliable? What exactly is it that is wrong with these sources? Am looking to escalate this concern if the points raised are not going to be treated fairly as this is starting to look a lot like a foregone conclusion, with a lot of thoughtful points being dismissed. It is becoming rather suspicious as to why this response from the general community is being ignored. If the decision process is not democratic, does that make it okay for it to be overruled by one claim that assumes non-notability, rather than acting in good faith to find evidence of notability? Can CHRISSYMAD explain what is so insufficient about the below, having read them? What efforts have been made by the nominator to review these respective sources and consider the evidence presented? Particularly given the effort that has clearly gone into creating and maintaining the article and then in finding further references during the debate. Autocratically ignoring the feedback from the community and deciding halfway through the process a decision is just not in the spirit of this site, even if overlooking the democratic voting process is understood. As someone with no dog in this fight, there is surely better use of time invested by Wikipedians so far, who after all are interested in sharing rather than destroying information.


 * https://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniela-quaglia/an-honest-deceit-a-story-_b_11764362.html
 * http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/matthew-phillips/give-us-back-our-heroes-h_b_6061840.html
 * http://www.3ammagazine.com/3am/archives-pain-holy-bible/
 * https://glasgowreviewofbooks.com/tag/guy-mankowski/
 * http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/8971163.The_write_stuff/
 * http://www.thejournal.co.uk/culture/arts/preview-letters-yelena-dance-city-4401485
 * http://narcmagazine.com/local-interview-how-i-left-the-national-grid/
 * http://louderthanwar.com/how-i-left-the-national-grid-book-review/
 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.23.20.158 (talk) 16:57, 25 January 2018‎ (UTC)

*Keep. I note that when CHRISSYMAD rejected a draft article of a book by the author I recently submitted she acknowledged that a Huffpo article cited proved notability. So I'm unclear why two Huffpo articles here don't denote two notable articles at the very least? I'm new to Wiki and assume good faith BTW! Thanks StarlaMeaux (talk) 18:00, 25 January 2018 (UTC) SOCKSTRIKE. Primefac (talk) 12:22, 26 January 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Assessment of linked sources?
 * StarlaMeaux and CameronPage1 are socks of Claracalderwood. See Sockpuppet investigations/Claracalderwood.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:19, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh 666 06:38, 30 January 2018 (UTC) Declaration of interest: I was Guy Mankowski’s PhD supervisor.
 * Keep

The deletion proposal states: “Non-notable author with no actual coverage anywhere to be found.”

Notability would presumably be under the “Books” or “People” guidelines. For Books it is sufficient to meet one of five criteria. Point 1 is:

“The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself.”

Mankowski’s novel “How I Left the National Grid” was covered in Glasgow Review of Books and NARC magazine:

https://glasgowreviewofbooks.com/2015/05/26/in-recovery-guy-mankowskis-how-i-left-the-national-grid/

http://narcmagazine.com/local-interview-how-i-left-the-national-grid/

These are non-trivial articles in independent published sources.

For “People” the criterion of notability is “significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject”. Mankowski has coverage in independent sources other than the two I have listed, so would seem to meet the required criterion.

Perhaps there is an argument to shorten the article, but I don’t see how it would be helpful to delete it.

Andrew Crumey (talk) 11:17, 30 January 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 00:16, 7 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep- Just. The article is far too long for the subject. But further to the above the 3:AM Magazine piece is also “significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject”. It seems the subject's work was adapted for stage too, with the piece in The Journal offering some evidence.


 * http://www.3ammagazine.com/3am/archives-pain-holy-bible/
 * http://www.thejournal.co.uk/culture/arts/preview-letters-yelena-dance-city-4401485 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.14.147.61 (talk) 13:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep There is some coverage that satisfies WP:SIGCOV. There doesn't seem to be any coverage e.g London Review of Books or any of these usual sources that would reviews in, possibly because of the types. The ref's offered by 149.14.147.61, half of them blogs, are not WP:RS. Lots of refs on the main are scrap, and need to come out, as they are not RS. But does seem to be an established publisher. scope_creep (talk) 15:26, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I have removed all the dead refs, non RS blogs, promo language, plain adverts for the books, stuff nothing to do with it. That should give a better view of it. scope_creep (talk) 15:55, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. This appears to be a convoluted sock confused discussion, however we got here I've looked at the refs and they check out. Szzuk (talk) 22:51, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep, the subject appears wholly notable. And after the edits by Scope creep I fail to see what guidelines this article is infringing upon. --Donald Trung (Talk) (Articles) 19:57, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I fail to see how he meets GNG when almost all of the sources are basically interviews or primary. CHRISSY MAD  ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  20:45, 11 February 2018 (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.