Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terry Grimwood


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:39, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Terry Grimwood

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:07, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, United Kingdom,  and England. UtherSRG (talk) 16:07, 6 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment . There's a Black Static interview with him, which also mentions reviews of books Axe and Soul Masque. The British Fantasy Society reviewed his novella Interference , which has been nominated for a British Fantasy Award , and possibly a collection called There is a Way to Live Forever. He's at least verging on notability, but sources may simply be offline; someone who knows more about horror might be able to dig them up. It seems a bit odd that an author with a 20 year career, several books, and at least one major award nomination isn't notable. There's another interview but it's not independent. CohenTheBohemian (talk) 03:35, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Change to keep. I don't think either NAUTHOR or GNG are met so far, but perhaps the BFS Award nomination will spur a bit more coverage. Let's give the article a chance, and if nothing else turns up in a few months, re-AfD it. It would be silly to delete it and make a new article again shortly after. CohenTheBohemian (talk) 15:23, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * An interview with Duotrope - does this, plus the Black Static interview, meet GNG? CohenTheBohemian (talk) 14:41, 11 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment . The very recent review of Interference from the British Fantasy Society (per above dated 29 May 2023) suggests other reviews are out there, we're just not looking in the right places. ETA: I note that there are multiple book reviews already linked in the article in The Future Fire (the others look like blogs). Espresso Addict (talk) 03:49, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Changing to keep per multiple reviews of his works sufficient to meet my understanding of WP:AUTHOR. Espresso Addict (talk) 12:17, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:31, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Reviews of the books can indicate notability of the books, but the bar for WP:NAUTHOR is higher than just "has written notable books". - UtherSRG (talk) 11:18, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The Future Fire looks like a reasonable magazine (eg it has an SFE entry); they reviewed Axe (which therefore seems to meet GNG); Monster Book for Girls; Bloody War; The Places Between; and The Exaggerated Man and Other Stories. They're all significant coverage, no capsule reviews. CohenTheBohemian (talk) 12:20, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Does this satisfy WP:NAUTHOR vice just providing notability for each book? - UtherSRG (talk) 12:35, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Of course it does not.
 * But I don't understand why you ask. Notability (people) states that "A person who does not meet these additional criteria may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability", and "People who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria". The GNG is a lower bar than NAUTHOR; could you explain why you keep invoking the higher standard?
 * In any case, reviews imply that there are likely other reviews out there, and possibly more about Grimwood, and if the article is not deleted they might be useful to someone improving it. As an alternative to deletion, we might even make a page for Axe and merge Grimwood's page into it... CohenTheBohemian (talk) 03:52, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The subject specific notabilities imply going beyond GNG and, in many instances, are easier to prove because of the specificity. If NAUTHOR can't be proven, then we drop down to seeing if GNG can be proven. I'm not seeing either being proven here. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:31, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your explanation, I appreciate it. CohenTheBohemian (talk) 15:17, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @UtherSRG, as you have let the sources exist tag stay on the page, I assume you agree GNG is met and you are effectively withdrawing your nomination. CohenTheBohemian (talk) 02:59, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Do not assume. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:43, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Do not assume. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:43, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete' Examined references for this article. Fails to meet WP:PRIMARY.
 * ContributorMix (talk) 11:37, 15 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete Looked at the 10 references are above. Ref 4 is non-rs.  Posting book profiles on the sellers site as references on an Afd  is deeply uncool and probably disruptive editing. Looking at the rest. All of the then are non-rs left so your left with two interviews, one at Black Static and another short one at Duotrope.  Interviews don't establish notability. There is no coverage on the editor. So fails WP:NAUTHOR as no real reviews and fails WP:SIGCOV. The references on the article are junk. Ref 3 when it says its review isn't a review. It is a book publisher profile to sell the book. That is NOT a review. They are absolute junk and mostly non-rs.    scope_creep Talk 
 * Keep per above. NYC Guru (talk) 10:06, 21 September 2023 (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.