Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Cahill (author)


 * 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. TNT but a proper recreation permitted Spartaz Humbug! 10:58, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Kevin Cahill (author)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable author biography. The primary source is his speaking agency's page. A whole section is devoted to a single article he wrote in a now-defunct magazine. Promotional in nature. A search for sources off-wiki revealed nothing of note. Ganesha811 (talk) 19:14, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:17, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:18, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:18, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:19, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:20, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:20, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Keep I have found book reviews for two of his books with notable publications which I have added. That and he is a Fellow of the Royal Academy (which meets NProf3). Article needs chopping down.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 21:09, 17 February 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 02:54, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Weak Keep I agree with David. in addition, there might need to be a few more sources signifying unique coverage, but the amount of sources within the article is reasonable, and most of them are external, as in, not made by the subject Totalstgamer (talk) 16:56, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Probably weakly notable (based only on two book reviews), but the entire article is overly promotional and WP:TNT must be applied. Wouldn't mind a WP:PROMO delete, where someone else can start from scratch. SportingFlyer  T · C  12:58, 2 March 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.