Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Hawkins (columnist)


 * 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. I have to discount the "19 refs" argument, which means there is a general consensus that the article is unsalvageable. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  21:37, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

John Hawkins (columnist)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Apparently promotional article, most content by SPAs. Claims of significant noteworthiness, but no evidence that Hawkins passes any prong of WP:JOURNALIST, or WP:GNG; most sources are primary or non-RS blogs; one RS is an article by Hawkins, and only the Yahoo! News article is even passing RS coverage. A WP:BEFORE overwhelmingly returns other people called "John Hawkins". I'd be happy to be shown wrong, but it would have to be shown, with independent third-party coverage in solid RSes that clearly meets WP:JOURNALIST, WP:GNG or another notability criterion. David Gerard (talk) 21:48, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 21:48, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 21:48, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 21:48, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 21:48, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep. As I said on the article's talk page: I don't agree that most of the content is from SPAs, I see in the history several confirmed editors who have done other topics. I don't agree that WP:GNG fails because most sources are primary or non-RS blogs, some of the mentioned publications / websites look famous to me. Also I believe WP:AUTHOR criteria tend to be less stringent. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:18, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Which prongs of WP:AUTHOR does it meet? There's also the completely zero third-party RS coverage - David Gerard (talk) 19:40, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. I've checked those sources that are independent and reliable, and they don't tell us enough about this man to populate an encyclopaedia article.  I've searched for additional sources, and I've found nothing useable.—S Marshall T/C 13:51, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 22:04, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Writing articles for notable publications does not confer notability. KidAd  •  SPEAK  22:46, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep 19 refs is pretty good for a small article like this. Dswitz10734 (talk) 15:44, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * If it were cut down to RSes about Hawkins, it would have almost no refs - David Gerard (talk) 16:37, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Sources provided are not entirely third party or merely confirm he had stuff published. There is a lack of indepth coverage where he is the subject. LibStar (talk) 01:10, 29 October 2021 (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.