Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jon Smith


 * 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. No policy- or guideline-backed arguments for keeping the article have been shared. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 03:42, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Jon Smith

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This author has published a couple of books that seem to have enough coverage to have their own Wikipedia articles, but the subject doesn't appear to meet WP:NAUTHOR criteria for inclusion.

Note: Previously deleted at Articles for deletion/Jana Morgan. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:06, 23 March 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete agree subject does not appear to meet WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG Boneymau (talk) 02:04, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep added additional 2017 references to show subject continues to create notable works - a 'best feature film' nomination at an international film festival and regular written article contributions to a leading trade magazine Sanseng (talk) 11:04, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * You're missing the point. Exactly what criteria of WP:NAUTHOR does this author meet? Contributing to trade magazines and having a film nominated in a non-notable film festival isn't helping here. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:16, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep This article had 2,858 pageviews in the last year, so clearly there is significant interest in this subject.92.21.249.2 (talk) 13:40, 24 March 2017 (UTC) — 92.21.249.2 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * An article having pageviews isn't a valid reason for keep. I'm sure there are lots of pageviews for all kinds of non-notable or inappropriate topics, but that doesn't mean the author is notable. We need sources, of the kind that Sanseng has added, to demonstrate notability. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 03:23, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * A source from IMDB and a primary source about an obscure film festival talking about itself, which Sanseng added, don't demonstrate notability. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:18, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 18:45, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:20, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:20, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 02:31, 8 April 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 01:18, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete NAUTHOR L3X1 (distant write)  21:49, 19 April 2017 (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.