Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeremy Taylor (writer)


 * 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. T. Canens (talk) 17:21, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Jeremy Taylor (writer)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails notability tests WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. No articles about the subject appear to exist in reliable sources. The author's body of work is not sufficiently notable in and of itself to justify a Wikipedia article. Claims that the subject held a government position or academic position are not sourced and therefore insufficient to meet WP:PROF or WP:POLITICIAN. ⌘macwhiz (talk) 16:01, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - fully agree with the nominators comments - the citations barely mention him. Off2riorob (talk) 16:12, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Speedy Delete  - I am the author for this article. I would rather not draw out this discussion and would rather have this deleted promptly. I have added some additional references; removed information that lacked the required references; and added stub classifications for the article. I strongly suggest keeping the article, and also would like to introduce for your consideration the context of producing biographies on living persons in countries such as Trinidad & Tobago where published data is woefully inadequate, both in print and online. Ironically, it is people like Taylor who archive the lives and activities of Caribbean people and culture, and conflict of interest precludes them from being written about in their own publications. I do not know the solution to this for the purpose of Wikipedia, but it is a significant issue that I think the editors need to consider. I recommend instead making this and articles like it stub-class articles, so that as more newspaper, journal and other documentation from the developing world is digitised and written, such references can be added to flesh out these stub articles. Alternatively, if Wikipedia looks to remove all similar articles, then there will be a disproportionately small number of entries on the people and culture of the developing world. That would be a grave pity. Larasister (talk) 17:28, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Then place a db-author template on the article. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:54, 30 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Gamaliel (talk) 17:31, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete: sparsely sourced article neither demonstrates any particular notability nor exhibits any depth of coverage by the sources. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:33, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - I believe that his contribution to journalism and publishing in TT makes him notable. Founder of MEP alone is significant, IMO. Now whether I can source that adequately is another issue - there is, of course, something of a gulf between what's notable and what can be readily sourced online, especially for a small country. Guettarda (talk) 19:24, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Journalists get coverage through their employment but that does not assert wikipedia notability. I see Guettarda's position and would welcome that being proved correct but all I see is a redirect to Media and Editorial Projects Limited or a small merge there.- Off2riorob (talk) 19:33, 30 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Hold on, this looks like a potential keep. The article was created by a long-term (if not terribly prolific) editor who works in the general area moderately regularly. The New York Times cited the subject as a reliable source in a moderately sensitive area in an article on V. S. Naipaul, a person of such stature that the Times typically takes great care in selecting its sources. GSearching ("Jeremy Taylor" + Trinidad) turns up an awful lot of GNews and Gbooks; GNews coverage is unsurprisingly weaker (it doesn't archive much of the Caribbean media) but comments on at least one of his books turn up in the Washington Post and the Toronto Star . I don't know quite what's going on here; but when an SPA appears out of the blue and calls for the deletion of an article on a living person with an empty "just not notable" rational, I'm dubious. Maybe the subject, a publisher, rejected one of this guy's books -- we've got no way of assessing what's going on. The article needs substantial improvement, and might not be salvageable, but let's-just-delete-it isn't the right answer. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:50, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment In case it's unclear to anybody else, as far as I can tell, HW's comments regarding an "SPA" above are in reference to the following post to BLPN: . I'm adding this because his comments initially led me to think he was suggesting Macwhiz is a disgruntled author SPA! ;) Beyond that, I am confused about the two links HW supplies above. The WaPo link is a review of a Trinidad & Tobago book by another author ("James T. Yenckl"), and the Toronto Star covers several travel books, none of which appear in Jeremy Taylor's list of publications. I'm willing to personally exercise a slightly lower bar for notability for this individual given his background, but neither of the links supplied seem to have anything to do with the subject, unless I am missing something (which is, of course, entirely possible). ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  00:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply. Well, you are missing something, but it's one of those arcane Google search "features" that can drive you crazy. Basically, when you do a GNews search and hit articles behind a newspaper paywall, the GNews search pages will quote the actual text relating to your search, but when you go to the actual link, it's hidden by the paywall if it's far enough down in the body of the article. Here's the GNews search results ; for example, the Washington Post link shows "As Jeremy Taylor author of Masquerade an excellent guide ..." -- but that's not included in the "Article Preview" that shows up when you click on the link. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:48, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Re: Re: And here I thought you done gone crazy. Doh! I'm going to take a closer look at those results and see if I can convince myself to vote !keep. Thanks for clarifying that. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  00:52, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem is that you need to be able to demonstrate that "sources address the subject directly in detail" -- and I don't see how you can do that based upon a search-fragment from an article-behind-a-paywall -- particularly given the articles do not appear to be on the topic of Taylor, so there's no presumption that they would give him detailed coverage. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Appreciated, Guettarda & Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. I've dug up as many references that were buried deep inside Google as I can. I wouldn't have created the article if I didn't think his work was particularly notable, not just at a national but regional level. The trouble remains that the bulk of his regular work – and the debates that other regional figures including Nobel Laureate Derek Walcott waged with him regarding his local theatre reviews in the press – was the 70s-90s, before the advent of digitisation and the internet, so much of it is not online and citable. To be honest, I'm not sure it's worth the effort to go down to the National Library to try and source those articles for the purpose of this article – hence my brief conversion to the request for speedy deletion if the article couldn't be salvaged. For me, it does Taylor, Trinidadians, and similar local/regional figures an injustice to debate the "notability" of his work in this forum, as it's a closed question for almost anyone based in the region or diaspora. But as I mentioned earlier, the context of trying to create articles on these figures is something the Wikipedia team should consider as the problem will persist for many, many duly notable figures that make their living and their reputations in the often-not-documented "developing world". Larasister (talk) 02:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * One important point - sources don't need to be online to be citable. However, what we need are sources that specifically talk about Taylor. Though honestly, I would love to have a copy of the article he wrote shortly after the coup, where he talked about the call he got from the BBC. Hearing his report on the BBC, within an hour or two of the attack on the Red House and ttt was, for me, a significant part of the whole chain of events. Even before that he has gravitas that other newsmen didn't have. And that's the problem. I know he was one of the leading journalists in Trinidad in the 80s. I just don't quite know if I can demonstrate that... Guettarda (talk) 02:40, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Sounds like a largely self-written page by a very undistinguished freelance writer who never produced anything of note. This bio reads more as a self-advertisement written by the subject than a real Wiki bio. Not at all distinguished in journalism or as an author. T&T has produced a number of noteworthy authors (Naipaul, Lovelace, etc), but this guy is not one of them. Google either of those and you will see when an author is actually noteworthy there is plenty of online info about them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RadRo (talk • contribs) 13:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)  — RadRo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 *  Tentative Keep What is a "tentative keep"? I am not really sure. I have strong suspicions based on the article's existing sourcing and content, some tantalizing Google results above, and Guettarda's thoughts, that notability exists. Unfortunately, I am utterly unable to prove it, and I know where burden lies. I have reached out to DGG to see if he might have any luck finding some offline sourcing, and will keep checking back in to see if he digs anything up. In the interim, I have no particular rebuttal to offer against any of the above delete votes, and am fully cognizant of the lack of any real inclusion argument included in this vote. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  14:18, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep but consider merging some of the related content, certainly the article for his book Discover Trinidad and Tobago, which does not warrant separate coverage, and probably also  the article for the publisher he runs, Media and Editorial Projects Limited, and perhaps also   Caribbean Beat  the magazine he publishes, and even  Caribbean Review of Books,  which he also publishes--though that is the one of them all which most deserves a separate article. I must admit I felt a little more positive about this before discovering separate articles on each of them, a classical WP:Walled Garden. This is one of those cases where there might well be distinct sources for notability, but they are not in any practical way accessible to us because of regional bias. It's not just getting access to print: Some regions and languages have neither print nor online adequate periodical or newspaper indexes, or even book union catalogs. And in the US there are inadequate collections for some areas in even the major libraries. And some aspects of life of great human cultural and economic significance do not publish anything that resembles what we think of as reliable sources; some still rely entirely upon oral or manuscript traditions. The only approach to this that is productive for us in the short run is to relax our standards for what we do accept, in consideration of what can be expected to be found. In the long one, we can hope that the spreat of the multilingual Wikipedia projects will encourage the development of the necessary resources. I have sometime criticized some WMF initiatives, but their efforts to increase participation for the global south, and for development in these regions of the necessary basic information resources, do information from the things and people important to them can get the recognition they deserve in the general world community.   DGG ( talk ) 16:53, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete I simply don't think that it has been demonstrated that this person has done anything to warrant an entry. Simply having a job or writing a few articles isn't enough. I think it really cheapens the whole point of Wikipedia if this kind of self-promotional advertisement is allowed to stand as a legitimate article. If such a marginal personality as this warrants an entry, where do we draw the line? RadRo (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:05, 31 May 2011 (UTC). — RadRo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * note - this user vote commented twice so I have struck this second one. Off2riorob (talk) 17:32, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete I don't see how this person even approaches the standard for biographies of living persons established by Wikipedia. I have spent a great deal of time in the Caribbean (including Trinidad) on business and I have never heard of him, though I could recommend several other media/entertainment personalities worthy of note. "Founder of MEP alone" is NOT "significant," just one of millions of people who started a private business concern. Really, this entry leads like an advertisement for his businesses, not the bio of a serious person in the Caribbean. AzureHears ( talk ) —Preceding undated comment added 00:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC). — AzureHears (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment Uhm...welcome to Wikipedia, and congratulations on your first edit :). In all seriousness, while I understand some of the other deletion rationales in this conversation, I don't really get the suggestion that the article reads like an advertisement that you and RadRo are advancing. It mentions this individual's current business exactly twice, and makes no grand claims about said business at all (like you'd expect from an advertisement). If this is an advertisement, as you and RadRo so loudly claim, it is a particularly poor attempt at advertising. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  03:51, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment I struck my delete comment - there has been a limited degree of improvement to the citations and some of the comments here regarding his notability have made me reconsider and move my delete position to a more neutral kind of no consensus position which would default to keep Off2riorob (talk) 20:37, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  — -- Cirt (talk) 17:14, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment I have no strong feelings about this article one way or the other; while it has improved considerably since this AfD was posted, I'm still not sure I see the notability. I'll stipulate that Taylor may be notable in Trinidad and Tobago, but if it's not possible to show that notability clearly in the Wikipedia article to someone not from that country, I think the notability issue could still be murky.  For that reason, I'm not withdrawing my nomination at this time... but neither am I pressing for the article's deletion.  I'm mainly happy that the nomination has caused improvements and started the discussion.  Now, if someone were to find a WP:RS for something or things that unequivocally meets WP:AUTHOR, then I'd withdraw my nom. (I don't think the cited reviews are quite there yet for criterion 3.) // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 22:24, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think it would be easy to meet WP:AUTHOR. Rather, I think he meets WP:BIO and WP:GNG in a more general sense. It's the combination of his contribution as a journalist and a publisher. And yes, nationally significant figures are notable. So if he is notable in TT, that would make him Wikipedia-notable. Guettarda (talk) 15:25, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - we still need better sourcing (and I'm trying to track some down), but I think that the combination of his contribution as a journalist, founder of MEP, publisher, and the way he is referred to by, for example, the author of the NYT article on Naipaul are enough to demonstrate notability. Agree with DGG that some material in the whole group of articles should probably be merged. Guettarda (talk) 15:29, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, I don't think the NYT article does much to establish notability. If it were an article about Taylor, it would help establish notability.  Instead, it uses him for a sound bite about somebody else.  Note WP:BASIC: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple..."  (my emphasis).  Being a journalist, an author, or a publisher isn't enough in and of itself.  Are there T&T-specific sources that show him to be notable there?  That describe him in some way as being special as a journalist or publisher? // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 16:16, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * To say being a journalist, an author, or a publisher isn't enough in and of itself totally misses the point. He's the co-founder of MEP, which is one of the most important publishers in the country, if not the region. He's the founding editor of Caribbean Beat, an significant regional publication which just happens to have been BWIA's in-flight magazine. Together with Nicholas Laughlin he was responsible for the relaunch of the Caribbean Review of Books. Founding a regionally significant publisher and several important periodicals is a notable achievement. He's also notable as a journalist. That's difficult to demonstrate simply because people don't write about journalists much, and Taylor is much of a self-promoter. The fact that the author of the article about Naipaul chose Taylor as a source indicates that the author of the article sees Taylor as an expert, as an authoritative source. Which points to notability in a far more substantive way than does a few newspaper stories about the person. That isn't something that can easily be codified into a guideline, but guidelines aren't simply algorithms into which you can simply plug data and have an answer pop out. Guidelines are important tools to help sort out problems like notability, but they aren't really just our best attempts to muddle through problems. Systemic bias remains a problem. Take, for example, our topic-specific guidelines - we have ones for porn stars, but we don't any for businesspeople or journalists (AFAIK). Because we have a large body of people who are about the former, we have guidelines to ensure that every porn star of any importance can be covered. Editor interest should not substitute for editorial judgement. Guettarda (talk) 00:49, 5 June 2011 (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.