Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Lockley (2nd nomination)

Thomas Lockley
AfDs for this article:


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

Does not seem to pass GNG or even SNG. His work may be notable, he is not. Slatersteven (talk) 13:21, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It appears that the deletion proposal has been compromised by it trending on Twitter/X, as I found out about the proposed deletion of this page through my Twitter/X feed.
 * Example: https://x.com/GiveMeBanHammer/status/1814652541755662480 Obversa (talk) 15:13, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Actually should have CSD'd as its been deleted before. Slatersteven (talk) 13:23, 17 July 2024 (UTC)


 * The first deletion seems to have happened 6 years ago, back when his Yasuke book was yet to reach the other side of the pond. He and his work have since become much more notable since then, for better or worse. It's better we keep this page for that reason alone. --Jnglmpera (talk) 13:34, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The deletion proposal also appears to have been compromised by it trending on Twitter/X: https://x.com/GiveMeBanHammer/status/1814652541755662480. Due to this, I also think it is better to keep  the page for now due to possible interference by non-Wikipedians for or against the deletion of the page. Obversa (talk) 15:15, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * If outsiders notice it, it's fine, and not really a reason in and of itself for one course of action or another. Most people here are names I recognize. SWinxy (talk) 18:09, 21 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep. There is significant coverage and reviews of African Samurai: The True Story of Yasuke including in the Washington Post, The Houston Chronicle, Library Journal, Booklist, and a large number of other places. Author meets the notability guidelines at WP:Author.--SouthernNights (talk) 14:16, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Just want to point out that I think this policy is REALLY wrong-headed or at least used in ways not intended. The wording for 1-4 are vague and utterly subjective, and you can make a case for literally every author ever since almost every book gets a review somewhere at some point, and the definition of a PhD is to create new knowledge, and academics write on subject matter. It amounts to saying the person is an academic. It's a carte blanche to make thousands of Wikipedia pages on nobodies who no one has ever heard about. There absolutely has to be SOME requirement that SOME news source SOMEWHERE covered the actual person and not just some review of the book. Like it or not, Tia Tequila is more notable than 99.9% of humanity. Harizotoh9 (talk) 21:28, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The policy is actually 100% on point. The notability of creative people like artists and writers is determined by what they create. Many creative people also avoid publicity and the limelight, which is one of the reasons why this policy was developed. As for reviews, the gold standard are reviews from notable media sources like Publishers Weekly. As a result, we don't just accept any random review out there. SouthernNights (talk) 10:35, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The policy as written seems to be meant for a very, very, small niche of elite people, whereas it's more or less used that any author and academic deserves a Wikipedia page. In fact I'm hard pressed to see how ANY author or PhD would fail this test. If someone gets a PhD or writes a book on a subject, they're defacto an expert, and if they publish any work it's gonna get reviews. So we end up with thousands upon thousands of perma-stub wikipedia pages on utter nobodies. So somehow it doesn't matter that there's literally never been a SINGLE article anywhere on this person or a complete dearth of biographical information other than a 1-2 sentence bio from the publisher.
 * "Many creative people also avoid publicity and the limelight" ie 100 non-notable. And that notability isn't derived from their works, so if a book gets reviews it's the BOOK that should get a page, not the author! The advocates of this policy seem to cite morality, that it's a moral good to have pages on "important" figures like academics and scientists because otherwise the site would be filled with biographies on celebrities. And there's some projects that seem to make it their lifes mission to make these kind of pages to right some historical wrong. But that is just how notability works. Tia Tequila is more notable than most of humanity, and that is fine. These academics should be seen as SOURCES not subjects for Wikipedia. Harizotoh9 (talk) 17:12, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I really don't think having a single well reviewed book is enough to pass WP:AUTHOR. By this standard almost any academic who has published a book (which tend to be frequently reviewed in academic journals) would be notable. His citation record is quite weak Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:40, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed on keep due to now increased notability as mentioned here and by Silver seren. SmallMender (talk) 11:02, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, United Kingdom,  and England. Shellwood (talk) 17:05, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Thibaut (talk) 18:44, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep. Meets WP:Author as explained by SouthernNights. His work is notable, and his authorship of one of his works has been widely recognized - this is enough to establish notability. Qflib (talk) 13:47, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep. Deleting this article is much less intellectually honest and useful than documenting how . Wikipedia is ought to be an encyclopedia, and an encyclopedia is ought to tell the truth. 122.213.236.124 (talk) 02:29, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete/refocus article on book. Google scholar profile shows citations are nowhere near enough to pass WP:PROF . A single book is not enough to pass WP:AUTHOR, though the book clearly passes WP:NBOOK. I would recommend this article be reworked to focus primary on the book, similar to the result of Articles for deletion/Abigail Shrier. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:45, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 * , there's a major difference between a book that received just a few reviews and one that received a ton internationally. Which is why WP:AUTHOR doesn't refer to multiple books being the sole requirement of #3, but that a well-known work singular can be enough. Anyways, here I go.
 * 'African Samurai': The story of Yasuke — black samurai and warlord's confidant - The Japan Times
 * Yasuke: The True Story of the Legendary African Samurai - The Japan Society of the UK
 * Researcher sheds light on mystery of African samurai Yasuke made famous by Netflix anime - Mainichi Shimbun
 * African Samurai: The True Story of Yasuke, A Legendary Black Warrior in Feudal Japan - History: Reviews of New Books
 * Yasuke - Geographical
 * African Samurai: The True Story of Yasuke, a Legendary Black Warrior in Feudal Japan - Publishers Weekly
 * Author reveals the story of Japan's first foreign-born samurai - Kyodo News
 * Get ready for the ‘African Samurai’ - Houston Chronicle
 * Masterpiece on legendary black samurai's remarkable life in feudal Japan - Cape Argus
 * The African Samurai: The True Story of Yasuke, Japan’s Legendary Black Warrior - Tokyo Weekender
 * Bondage and Bushido - InTouch
 * Biography tells how a black bodyguard became the first 'African Samurai' - The Oklahoman
 * This African Samurai’s Biography Reveals Why Historical Representation Matters - Paste
 * African Samurai: The True Story of Yasuke, a Legendary Black Warrior in Feudal Japan - Booklist
 * African Samurai - Washington Independent Review of Books
 * African Samurai - Kirkus Reviews
 * And that's just from a Google search and ProQuest (and the main WPL one, which I didn't expect to find anything at all, surprised about the Geographical result), without even trying any variant searches or anything to tease out deeper stuff. Silver  seren C 07:13, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, you know, the second book and stuff I pointed out just below. Silver  seren C 07:13, 21 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep Lockley has a second book that came out as of two months ago, A Gentleman from Japan, and though it is still rather new, there's still a fair number of reviews out, even in that short time period. Interestingly, there's also an older article from several years back covering his research on this newly released book. As for him personally, there's plenty of articles related to his first book release that include biographical details about him, such as this article from the Mainichi Shimbun. So I fail to see how he doesn't meet the requirements of both the WP:GNG and, if it matters, WP:AUTHOR. Heck, per #3, I would say his first book more than blows out of the water the "significant or well-known work" requirement, as the amount of reviews of the book across international media are really too many to count. The list would be incredibly long. Silver  seren C 06:19, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep. The many reviews of both Yasuke and A Gentleman linked above by Silver seren meet my usual standard for WP:AUTHOR: multiple published reviews each of multiple books. There appears to be a lot of race-related drama over this subject on the net, in Japanese media, and at WP:ANI, on which I have no informed opinion, but that should not compromise our standards for notability. To the contrary, if any of that can be backed by reliable sources it would only increase notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:38, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep per David Eppstein. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:57, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep. The person in question is currently the focus of the current Assassin's Creed Shadow's controversy with relevant discussions bombarded with near-live updates from sketchy twitter sources about the author to discredit him. There have been reports exclusive to unreliable sources and twitter that he has been either fired or is under investigation by Nihon University - but he is still listed on Nihon's website and this week was part of an editorial comission for Britannica's page on Yasuke. I do not wish to derail this into a wallpost of whether Lockley is a reliable source or not (there is already an RSN for that), but rather to show that the subject of the article is currently undergoing a media frenzy where a lot of claims made are fabricated or unverified, relevant wiki discussions are being flooded with SPA's that violate BLP at this person, and to ultimately suggest that Lockley's page should follow a 'wait-and-see' approach until (at the earliest) the ANI has concluded, sanctions on the topic are imposed, or it gets raised to Arbcom as has been suggested as a possibility. Relm (talk) 12:02, 21 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep. The off-site links posted above show a lot of interest in this page and the Yasuke page, for whatever reasons. I worry that this off-site interest will just cause headaches. I say keep it as is, until all of this current popularity is gone. Then reassess if needed, which I'm not sure of; based on other comments about the authors upcoming works and general notability. Hooples (talk) 16:22, 21 July 2024 (UTC)