Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Barclay


 * 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 __EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 23:33, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

James Barclay

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

Unable to find any significant coverage of the author to pass WP:GNG. Plenty of sites list him and his books like a bibliography and a few have a couple of sentences about the author but nothing coming close to "significant coverage."

There are reviews of his stories/books but nothing that would qualify for any of the criteria in WP:AUTHOR. Toddst1 (talk) 15:07, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 15:09, 18 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep. The article needs a ton of work but the citations already listed prove notability with multiple reviews of his works in Publishers Weekly and Library Journal and the listing in Gale's Contemporary Authors. However, the citations already in the article barely scratch the surface of what's out there. A quick search turned up a ton more reviews of this author's work in places like Booklist, The Bookseller, Midwest Book Review, and many other places. And one review I found in The Bookseller, which I've now added to the article, called Barclay "One of the UK's most popular genre fantasy authors." As it states at WP:AUTHOR, notability is proved is a person "has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Barclay easily meets this standard with his collective body of work as proved by being the subject of multiple reviews.--SouthernNights (talk) 19:28, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. Agreed with SouthernNights - article needs improvement (and some advances have been made) but multiple reviews of Barclays works means article meets WP:AUTHOR#3. ResonantDistortion 20:03, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * keep as totally meets WP:AUTHOR #3. Plenty of reviews there. I've yet to see a writer in Contemporary Authors who doesn't meet WP:AUTHOR. Funny I wasn't pinged when I was heavily editing the article at the time of nomination to clean it up a bit. Shrug. Other articles related to the author are better candidates for nomination. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 10:21, 22 April 2023 (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.