Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Maitland-Lewis (3rd nomination)


 * 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. Although Nyttend hasn't returned to comment on the source noted by Joe Decker, there is a clear and uncontested consensus to delete nonetheless. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:09, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Stephen Maitland-Lewis
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The references are insufficient to demonstrate that WP:AUTHOR is met as most of the awards are by obscure organisations. There is a claim to have won a Benjamin Franklin Award for Historical Fiction but I'm unable to verify that e.g. from the official site. Searches for other sources to meet WP:BIO haven't produced anything. SmartSE (talk) 10:35, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom... appears that WP:OR may have been used. Nordic   Dragon  12:32, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  Nordic   Dragon  13:21, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions.  Nordic   Dragon  13:21, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  Nordic   Dragon  13:21, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I am reopening this debate for review of one source that may have been missed in the discussion. joe deckertalk 21:17, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. When you add a hoax, e.g. the Franklin non-award, we can't trust what else you're adding to the article, and we can't trust your conclusion that the subject is notable.  Nyttend (talk) 03:00, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, joe deckertalk 21:17, 7 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Note: I've reverted the closure of this discussion, as there was a source added to the article which I believe was not considered in the discussion. The last edit to the article (diff: ) does provide a link to a PDF, which is easily overlooked, as it does not mention the article subject. The source  lists as one of the three winners in the Historical Fiction department the title "Emeralds Never Fade", which is indicated to be a work by the subject in the bibliography.  As it appears that that evidence may have not been seen by the discussion participants, I'm reopening the debate.  Sorry for the extra lap. Notifying all previous participants:, , .  --joe deckertalk 21:23, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I had noticed this and should have probably commented as such. Regardless, the source lists one of his books as a finalist but not the winner. The source doesn't even list the author's name, let alone provide in-depth coverage. SmartSE (talk) 21:36, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete the pdf above lists just over 150 books. A book with the same name as one the author self published is one of them. I have no reason to personally doubt that it is his book, but with no name attached verifiability for Wikipedia purposes is stretched. If this is the best claim to notability then I am afraid I have to end up as a delete. AIR corn  (talk) 06:34, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment My 'Delete' vote stands, as above. Nordic   Dragon  15:22, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - not enough in-depth coverage in reliable sources to show it meets notability criteria. I agree with the assessment of the pdf source - doesn't show that this is the book, and even if it is, not that the book was the winner.  Onel 5969  TT me 13:08, 15 March 2016 (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.