Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stel Pavlou


 * 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 keep. Article has since been sourced and improved so am closing this shit show of an AFD as Speedy Keep/Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) – Davey 2010 Talk 00:45, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Stel Pavlou

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non notable screenwriter/novelist, Fails NOVELIST & GNG – Davey 2010 Talk 04:29, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:04, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:04, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:04, 20 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep As a long time fan of Pavlou, I noticed that his article was not updated with current information. And whomever started the article years ago never gave any citations. So, I spent time looking up current information and articles on Pavlou and offered up many citations to back them up. I also rearranged some of the original content, so it would flow better on the page. I have taken great care in the last few days to bring it up to standard. I removed the header stating that it was a live person and that it was lacking in quality content because I believed I had done my job in helping to update the information.


 * In reading some of the discussions from "Davey", it appears he may have some kind of issue with Pavlou personally, which he has denied. But it is difficult to look past his wording and reasoning.
 * As a new user to Wikipedia, I did my best to stay within guidelines and offer help to a neglected article. If I have misstepped in any way, I apologize. My intentions were only good. I see many many pages on Wiki that have no references at all. And I believe that Pavlou, being a notable screenwriter mentioned on IMDB for a cult classic movie, and his book Decipher being a bestseller is enough to keep his place on Wikipedia. If I have done anything in error, Mr. Pavlou's page should not be punished for it. Michellabellla (talk) 21:38, 21 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Moved from article talkpage. – Davey 2010 Talk 21:49, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * he may have some kind of issue with Pavlou personally - Please tell me how I can have an issue with someone whom I have never even heard of?, ::Needless to say that's utter bullshit and this whole campaign with you and the IP is laughable,
 * Now back on topic whilst your edits are appreciated in short the person is still non notable and as far as I can see still fails GNG. – Davey 2010 Talk 21:49, 21 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep just created an account because I am so angry. I am not the person who posted above. Kindly treat people with respect.Denverite2017


 * Keep It took two seconds to see that the writer's first movie, Formula 51, staring Samuel L Jackson and Robert Carlyle, was notable for reaching number one in the box office at the time of release, toppling Peter Jackson from the top slot. His second script was an adaptation for David Fincher of Rendezvous with Rama, the Arthur C Clarke novel, for Morgan Freeman. His debut novel Decipher sold into a dozen languages or more, and is considered worthy enough by Wiki to have it's own entry. It seems curious to me that the novels and films in question are worthy of their own wiki entries but the writer of them isn't.
 * Moved from article talkpage. – Davey 2010 Talk 22:34, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Being in films doesn't automatically mean they're notable, Please read WP:GNG. – Davey 2010 Talk 22:31, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Davey, it doesn't say he was IN a film, it says he wrote a box office number one... it also appears on the EMPIRE best 100 movies of the 00s, again referenceable in the premier film magazine in the UK. That, by definition IS notaeable and should end this. 69SwedishMeatballs (I'll eventually get the hang of how wiki works)
 * I know I obviously meant being a writer, Unfortunately one source won't help I'm afraid, Inre to getting the hang of this place - It becomes easier I promise :), Everyone struggles just takes some getting used to lol, – Davey 2010 Talk 02:19, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I have added a good handful of new citations from respected news sources/newspaper agencies including The Independent, The BBC, The Standard and the Times, U.K. I believe this should be worthy of acceptance. Thanks. Michellabellla (talk) 06:38, 22 March 2017 (UTC)


 * KeepI've worked with Stel, producing the cover for his book decipher and can vouch for him as an author and a great one at that, he is a man of integrity, and he deserves more recognition than he gets at the moment, his book Decipher is terrific, and would make a great movie itself, I cannot for the life of me imagine why anyone would want to delete his biography here! He is an author worthy of mention! Glen Saville (talk) 20:10, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable genre author with books released by major publishing houses and reviews in Kirkus, Publisher's Weekly, and many other outlets. Also the writer for a motion picture starring Samuel L Jackson. Yes, the article needs more references and work but that doesn't take away from the subject's notability. --SouthernNights (talk) 20:35, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Clear Keep, even before the recent improvements. When I created this article as a substub many years ago, it would not have passed current guidelines for demonstrating notability ;) but it does now. –  SJ  +  22:47, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * That said, there was a lot of self-promotion in the current article; I believe I've cut that out & fixed the overall style. –  SJ  +  23:31, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, SJ. I made a lot of mistakes and feel like I have accepted blame for being overly excited about the editing process. Mr. Pavlou's blog stated that he had a new book coming out and I happily shared the info. I have learned a lot in the last few days via trial and error...a lot of errors. But thank you for working with me and understanding my efforts were innocently executed. I know better now. Thanks. Michellabellla (talk) 00:26, 23 March 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.