Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Maizels


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Liz Read! Talk! 23:51, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

John Maizels

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

fails WP:GNG. The notability tag has been on this page for 10 years, and since then, he doesn't seem to have grown notable at all (I performed the preliminary search, nothing covering this individual in depth). The article is also written like it's meant to advertise the work of this individual, rather than cover an actually notable individual. Jaguarnik (talk) 20:37, 2 September 2023 (UTC) Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a Redirect to Raw Vision. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:19, 9 September 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:00, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Redirect to the Raw Vision magazine. This person isn't notable; all coverage relates to his involvement with the magazine, , . It's always John from the magazine, never anything about him as a person. Oaktree b (talk) 03:20, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Visual arts,  and United Kingdom.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:05, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment. WL Ebsco search appears to show at least one mainstream review of his book Raw Creation: Outsider Art and Beyond in The Atlantic (Adams, Phoebe-Lou. Atlantic. Nov96, Vol. 278 Issue 5, p121-122.) and Proquest is coming up with a short review of L'Art Brut in Le Monde (L'ART BRUT, de John Maizels Le Monde; Paris. 05 Dec 2003: 3.), so possible notability as an author, if a couple of other reviews could be found? At very least could be redirected, retaining history, so that if someone does uncover sufficient book reviews &c it can be reconstructed. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:33, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * 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.