Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas London (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. apparent consensus  DGG ( talk ) 01:57, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Thomas London (author)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is an author who appears to have produced only self-published works. Admittedly one of those works has received notable attention, and he produced a film that premiered at a notable indie film event, but I am not seeing WP:NAUTHOR criteria being met. Still WP:TOOSOON. Because notability is not inherited, a notable book does not automatically confer notability on its author. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:27, 11 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep: I have removed the IMDB reference and added valid references to this page which show that the film referenced screened at more than one festival (Arpa). The film also appears to show at Valley film festival, and at Cannes film festival . The creation of multiple notable works should make this author notable Victory1996 (talk) 07:07, 11 April 2017 (UTC) — Victory1996 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * You don't seem to understand the deletion rationale above. The fact that his short film has been merely screened anywhere does not make him notable. Exactly what part of WP:NAUTHOR does this person meet? Exactly where is the significant coverage of this person (not one or two of his works) in reliable independent sources? ~Anachronist (talk) 07:12, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 04:25, 19 April 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Double-voted in error, see comment beleow. Delete  inadequate sources found. Perhaps WP:TOOSOON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:24, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:52, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * DeleteWP:NOTSOAPBOX and also delete his novel Splintered: A Political Fairy Tale (novel). A book needs a minimum of 3 reviews to merit a page based on review alone, and I'm not at all sure Pub Weekly and Kirkus count.  this book, however, although published in 2015 - which should have made it easy to search for, appears to have sunk with barely a ripple.  His indy film got into a couple of film festivals, but there appears to have been no coverage of either the film or the book.  Here's a google search on the book title:, on the film title: Rain + "Thomas London" , and a gNews search on "Thomas London" .  We should delete him and his book.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:52, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, gosh, just noticed that I had run a quick search and quick opinon on this last week. Had forgottenthat completely when I spotted it today while looking at the list of Author-related deletions. I stand behind both of my opinions, but I guess I'll s the shorter one.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:00, 4 May 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.