Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tomos Roberts


 * 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 23:28, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Tomos Roberts

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Back in early January, the draft for this article was a staggering 95kb, thanks over 1500 edits and six months of work by its creator. I saw it around January 12 and thought I could see glimmer of notability. I trimmed it down and managed to get it published via AFC recently. Now that other editors have had a go at it as well, I question the notability, which hinges on one viral Youtube piece and its subsequent publication in book form. It may be either WP:TOOSOON or WP:BLP1E, or simply a GNG fail. Possibly (talk) 06:22, 19 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  Possibly (talk) 06:22, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions.  Possibly (talk) 06:22, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  Possibly (talk) 06:22, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions.  Possibly (talk) 06:22, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions.  Possibly (talk) 06:22, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Possibly is demonstrating a degree of contempt, malfeasance, bias, pettiness and animus the likes of which I have not witnessed on Wikipedia since I first joined, approximately six months ago.

It first began, rather suddenly, on or about 13 January. Possibly asked if I had a connection to the subject. I do not, though in creating the article, I did message his manager in order to obtain some menial details. It was as innocent as that. I further explained that "my dedication and hard work are in the service of Wikipedia, and my genuine goal or hope is to become a reviewer/editor/volunteer for the site. I believe, with additional experience and devotion, I can achieve this. I do realize that I've tackled a rather large project, but I remain undaunted and I assure you that I will continue to work diligently, even if I stumble along the way."

Possibly, then, asked if I was being compensated in any way. I am not. I explained the following... "I am not being compensated or paid in any way to write this article. I enjoy taking on challenges, especially those involving the composition or editing of various projects such as CVs, cover letters, letters of reference, medical school applications, government funding requests, letters of intent, etc. I'm able to undertake these projects in either French or English. But, ultimately, especially during these difficult economic times, I do not charge for my services. I simply don't have the heart to do so, tbh." Possibly responded with "I can't think of anything nice to say here". This was my first clue that something was amiss. I had honestly explained myself, but Possibly admitted that they couldn't think of anything nice to say.

I assumed that was the end of that brief, but odd interaction. It wasn't, however. Possibly would then take me to task for marking something as a "minor edit" when it, apparently, wasn't - no doubt, a simple mistake on my part, though I could begin to see a trend forming... one in which Possibly was looking for the smallest possible reason to hinder my progress or to create something where nothing existed. Please keep in mind that Possibly already stated, earlier, that they couldn't think of anything nice to say (to me/about me) - an admission of an unwarranted dislike of me for reasons I still can't explain.

Following this, Possibly warned that my use of the possessive pronoun "my" (as in, "my" article) was frowned upon and that the article didn't belong to me. According to Possibly, I was displaying "ownership". This is common parlance or phraseology (on my part), which represented something very innocent and harmless. This was yet another example of Possibly's way of demonstrating that, indeed, they had nothing nice to say about me, and furthermore, they were going to make sure that I was aware of their disdain for me. Now, at this point, I was, admittedly, becoming impatient. I think any reasonable person would have been.

You'd think Possibly would relent and allow me to continue working diligently and honestly as I had been. I'd be very mistaken. The harassment, as I began to interpret it, was just beginning. Possibly started deleting large portions of the draft without the courtesy of letting me know or the opportunity to discuss anything. Please keep in mind that it had only been a ONE day since the draft had been rejected. Possibly afforded me a single day to make the changes that were recommended to me (in the rejection of the draft). I had already begun to make changes and, in good faith, intended on making many more - as was required. Although it was permitted, I think most reasonable people would agree that it was premature of Possibly to begin indiscriminately removing entire sections of a draft that, until only a day earlier, they hadn't been involved with. I immediately asked that Possibly stop. It was happening so quickly and without discussion that I quite honestly believed that this was a case of vandalism. Please also keep in mind that none of this happened in a vacuum. Possibly had already showed contempt towards me and was consistently needling me (prior to the wholesale deletion of large portions of the draft). Following my admitted reaction of disbelief and near-horror, Possibly - as I would later find out - would have a fellow moderator chime in with false accusations of bullying (when, in reality, I was the one being bullied), claims that I was too attached to the draft, that I was being disrespectful and that I should apologize. Once again, this is one day following the declination of the draft. I was being gaslit - not only by Possibly - but by the their fellow moderator friend. (I later noticed that Possibly thanked the other moderator for coming to their defense)

I will admit that, in haste, and thinking that the draft was, indeed, being vandalized, I reverted all of Possibly's edits. I shouldn't have done this, but at the time, here I am thinking that the work I had invested was simply being deleted haphazardly and without warning or discussion.

If this is becoming unbelievable, it's not over! Undaunted, I would spend many more hours diligently working at implementing the recommendations made to me by other reviewers. I had reduced the draft to about 30% of its original size, though I was aiming for significantly less. This is when Possibly would make yet ANOTHER appearance. Possibly began, once again, asking for sources for 'this and that', though I hadn't yet been given a chance to make these changes. All other reviewers were so courteous and willing to provide me the time to make the needed changes. They seemed interested in encouraging me to improve and allowing me to learn how to better the draft. Possibly didn't allow for this and simply would NOT stop with the constant harassing, as I believed it to be. Possibly demanded answers and I wasn't interested in discussing anything with them at this point... and, given the way I had been treated (up until this point), can you really blame me?

Possibly would begin, anew, to delete large portions of the draft - once again, without discussion or warning. Then, once Possibly decided that it met their criteria and was, indeed, notable, they submitted the draft for review (without letting me know). I wasn't even provided the courtesy to submit the draft I had put so much work into. Possibly would, then, say the following (after submitting the draft): "A couple things. I have more than 40,000 edits on literally thousands of articles. I know what I am doing when I edit. Now, I have cleaned up the article to the point where it is quite close to being publishable. I would suggest waiting to see what the reviewers say (I submitted it again). Since you have pointedly avoided answering the very simple question of where you got the birth date, I have removed it except for the year." ... After everything I've described, I believe there's only one way to interpret this last comment and I don't think one needs to read too much between the lines.

I also noticed that Possibly wrote this on another reviewer's page... "Ha! Re: Tomos Roberts [...] That was some kind of ultra-layered baloney sandwich huh?" ... Possibly wrote this AFTER they submitted the draft for review, but prior to nominating for deletion. This is childish, vindictive, nasty and unnecessary!

Finally, Possibly continues to delete notable references from the draft because, if they're included, Possibly knows full well that the page is notable.

I would, kindly, ask that you take all of what I've written into consideration. This is far more than whether an article is notable. It is (notable). This has everything to do with vindictiveness, bullying, animus, 'pulling rank' and a determination to see someone fail. It's unfair, it's cruel and it's absolutely unwarranted.

Thankfully, there are some wonderful, helpful and courteous contributors and reviewers on Wikipedia and, ultimately, they provide me the encouragement to remain undaunted by one rotten apple.

Thank you, in advance and with respect, for your fair consideration.

ADDENDUM: I think it's only fair that Possibly and others refrains from editing the draft while it's being considered for deletion. Ryan (Ryancoke2020 (talk) 08:27, 19 January 2021 (UTC))
 * , we try to keep these AfD discussions focused on the subject of the article not on other editors. These essays have useful info: WP:Arguments to make in deletion discussions and WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions and WP:List of policies and guidelines to cite in deletion debates. A short, concise policy/guideline-based argument on the merits of the article and subject's notability that clearly states why it should be kept (or deleted) can help. Then see how the discussion process unfolds. It takes a while to learn the idiosyncracies of Wikipedia, and it helps to not take things personally. It was I who brought up the article on my talk page with, who is a good faith editor WP:AGF, because I saw how hard they, and other editors, worked to help it pass Articles for Creation (AfC). I'm certain the baloney sandwich comment was not meant as an insult, but rather to illustrate how many layers had to be peeled off before the article was ready to pass AfC. You are a good writer and encourage you to continue to work on projects here whatever the outcome of this discussion may be. PS, anyone can work on the article. Netherzone (talk) 15:16, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Netherzone... Your diplomacy and kindness are nonpareil (unparalleled). I can understand the baloney sandwich comment (I actually enjoy a baloney sandwich from time-to-time... ha!), but having Possibly tell me, at our earliest interaction, that they couldn't think of anything nice to say about me is difficult to explain away so easily - an unwarranted comment on their behalf, demonstrating a level of animus that should disqualify them (insofar as this is possible) from being able to escalate things to this point.

An analogy, if permitted... Possibly is offering up the Wikipedia equivalent of the 'death penalty' (more or less) after demonstrating animus and contempt towards me in a very personal way. But, then, at the time of 'trial' (to keep the analogy alive), I'm not permitted or I'm being dissuaded in providing reasons to the "jurors" for which Possibly has an incentive in seeing me 'executed'. Again, this is simply an analogy.

Another example... I'm, in fact, a gay man. If an editor on Wikipedia - regardless of their proficiency - demonstrated bias against members of the LGBTQ+ community, would they be permitted to denigrate me, go after me ceaselessly, edit 'my' draft to death and, once they were done picking apart the work in question, nominate the page for deletion? Would this be permitted? What recourse would I have? I ask this in all sincerity.

I am NOT saying that Possibly is anti-LGBTQ+ - I have no basis for such an accusation at this moment in time. That said, my example is an instance where an editor can be very good at what they do, but carries a bias or prejudice. In my case, Possibly immediately demonstrated a bias - for reasons I cannot currently explain (and only they know) - but, is permitted to nominate me for Wikipedia's 'death penalty' (again, more or less)? Is this truly how Wikipedia functions?

I'm a fierce advocate for societal fairness/justice and human rights in all walks of life. In the wise, immortal words of MLK Jr., "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." In my opinion, Possibly's behaviour and unjust attacks against me represent a threat to justice for other, new contributors to Wikipedia everywhere - ESPECIALLY if this current, 'kangaroo court' (of sorts) is permitted to continue. A successful deletion of the page in question - given the history of Possibly's behaviour - would lay the groundwork for a dangerous and terribly unfair precedent going forth.

And, before anyone accuses me of histrionics, please let me remind you that, as I mentioned above, I am a gay man. I know what discriminatory behaviour looks and feels like. This isn't foreign to me. I know it when I see it or when I experience it. Respectfully, please do not tell me otherwise or even suggest it.

Regardless of the outcome here, I will continue to contribute to Wikipedia (not only through editing, but financially), but I will also pursue this particular, egregious case in question to the figurative 'ends of the earth'. I will not stop and I will not tire until I obtain a fair, reasonable conclusion - even if this means going to the very top of the Wikipedia 'food chain'. You have witnessed my dedication, thoroughness and refusal to quit. Let it be known that this is the 'tip of the iceberg' insofar as my determination.

This isn't directed at you, Netherzone. You've demonstrated a great deal of fairness and diplomacy (as I've remarked previously). Nor, is this a threat - lest someone accuses me of such behaviour. A threat would involve an "if" - as in, "if" you don't deem the page notable, I will do "this". This is NOT what I'm saying - not in the least. To the contrary, I intend on seeing this through, regardless of the outcome. This has gone way, way too far, the unfairness and animus (demonstrated by Possibly) is beyond acceptable and it will be pursued... without fear or favour.

This is not personal, though Possibly has attempted to make it so. This is much more about principle and fairness at this juncture - something upon which we can, surely, all agree is of utmost importance.

Respectfully, Ryan (Ryancoke2020 (talk) 09:39, 20 January 2021 (UTC)) P.S. - If anyone cares to reach out to me directly or privately, you are welcome to email me @ ryan.girard1978@gmail.com ... I realize it's likely discouraged to include one's email, but this doesn't worry me in the least.


 * This is another personal attack, you have been warned once already about not doing this and this ] is also unacceptable. Theroadislong (talk) 10:07, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Theroadislong... Quite the opposite. These are absolutely NOT personal attacks. In fact, these as in defense of personal attacks put forth by Possibly (against me). You may disagree, but these attacks towards me are unjustified / unwarranted and they need to be aired and followed up on. I won't be muzzled or censored, my friend. I've done nothing wrong. And, while you can threaten me ('blocked from editing', as you've done) and you can attempt to justify Possibly's behaviour, this does NOT help advance your case. In fact, it looks a wee bit desperate. You've been fair and helpful throughout, but please don't tarnish your reputation by taking sides here. Please remain impartial. This is important! I hope, at the very least, that you've encouraged Possibly to refrain from engaging in personal attacks. Respectfully, have you? Impartiality and consistency are still alive and well, are they not? Please, once again, I implore you to be fair. Kindly, Ryan (Ryancoke2020 (talk) 10:43, 20 January 2021 (UTC))


 * It is not considered best practices to post huge walls of text WP:WALLOFTEXT in an AfD. More importantly, it is inappropriate to accuse an editor (Possibly) of contempt, malfeasance, bias, pettiness, animus, harassment, bullying, gaslighting, vandalism, vindictiveness, cruelty, “pulling rank”, “offering up a death penalty”, injustice, and unfairness; and another editor (Theroadislong) with muzzling, censorship and threatening you, as you have done above. If you have a problem with another editor there are appropriate venues for those discussions, and this is not one of them. Thank you. Netherzone (talk) 17:36, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Netherzone... Thank you! Ryan (Ryancoke2020 (talk) 17:45, 20 January 2021 (UTC))

I believe I've made a good faith attempt at demonstrating the personal attacks and bias against me by the nominator, though I will, at this time, establish reasons for which I believe this page is, indeed, notable.

1- The Great Realisation - the spoken word poem, written, produced and performed by Roberts - has, since its release in April (2020), garnered 60+ million views across the most prominent social media online platforms. This isn't a silly viral video of someone walking into the side of a building because they were too busy texting. No, in fact, it's a noteworthy, spoken word poem that truly inspired millions of people from across the globe. If you think about it, how many poems - of any kind - go viral? I think it's a mistake to downplay its significance as some have done.
 * Comment This was removed from the article because none of the sources supported it. Theroadislong (talk) 15:54, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I can provide additional links. C'mon! - Let's strive to be on the level!
 * Comment - https://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/books/the-story-behind-the-great-realisation-a-post-pandemic-bedtime-story-that-has-captured-the-hearts-of-millions/2020/05/13/a886cf20-93b6-11ea-82b4-c8db161ff6e5_story.html
 * The source says "has been viewed tens of millions of times" NOT 60. Theroadislong (talk) 16:34, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Theroadislong... Ryan (Ryancoke2020 (talk) 16:49, 20 January 2021 (UTC))
 * https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/54316724-the-great-realisation
 * https://www.harpercollins.com.au/9780755501588/the-great-realisation-the-post-pandemic-poem-that-has-captured-the-hearts-of-millions/
 * https://www.pocko.com/content/the-great-realisation/
 * https://womenlovetech.com/tom-foolerys-viral-video-the-great-realisation/#:~:text=Originally%20posted%20online%2C%20earlier%20in,of%20children%20and%20adults%20alike
 * https://medium.com/bookishly-yours/talking-with-probably-tomfoolerys-tomos-roberts-the-great-realization-fdacff184555
 * https://www.thestar.com.my/lifestyle/culture/2020/10/27/story-of-hope-inspirational-pandemic-poem-039the-great-realisation039-now-a-childrens-book

2- Following the release of 'The Great Realisation', it was translated into 20 languages (including Arabic, Hebrew, German, Spanish, French, Italian and Russian). I've included this information (which can be found in the Washington Post article) as part of the draft/page, but it was removed by one of the editors, stating that it was irrelevant. I would posit, however, how many poems these days are translated into 20 languages?

3- Roberts has garnered newspaper / magazine articles + TV interviews, including The Washington Post (as mentioned above), Evening Standard, The New Zealand Herald, Greenpeace NZ, Conde Nast Traveler, Vogue/Vogue Italia, CNN's Erin Burnett OutFront, Today with Hoda & Jenna (NBC), CNN Philippines, India Today, Republic World, The Tara Sharma Show, Otago Daily Times (NZ), Radio New Zealand (RNZ), The National (UAE), ITV News, Good Morning Britain, etc. Once again, however, many of these references have been removed - deemed irrelevant or unnoteworthy.

4- Roberts' poem was also publicly endorsed by Drew Barrymore, Jake Gyllenhaal, Jennifer Aniston and other celebrities. This may or may not be relevant, but it is additional proof that a poem - yes, a poem - managed to take the world by storm during the initial height of the pandemic.

5- Following these events, HarperCollins (US, Australia, New Zealand) and Egmont Books (UK) purchased the English Language rights to the poem and published it as a children's picture book (including illustrations by the famed artists, Nomoco). HarperCollins is one of the world's largest publishing companies and is one of the Big Five English-language publishing companies, alongside Penguin Random House, Simon & Schuster, Hachette, and Macmillan (as per Wikipedia). Again, I was not permitted to include information from HarperCollins.

6- Roberts has many spoken word poems that have gone viral (albeit, not to the extent of 'The Great Realisation'), but again, this information has been removed from the page. This is where I can't quite square Wikipedia's rules... Logan Paul, a YouTuber, known for mindless, often-times, inflammatory YouTube content has a Wikipedia page that links to YouTube videos. But, the page I've created isn't permitted to link to YouTube content by Roberts - including spoken word poems that have gone viral. I'm not even permitted to list this content under his 'Works'. Same goes for his 'Filmography'. I understand that spoken word poetry may not be as sensational as showing dead bodies in Japan's Suicide Forest (which Logan Paul has done), but it's still noteworthy that Roberts' lesser-known poetry can garner, at times, 100k+ views.

7- Robert isn't only noteworthy for the above. He wrote, produced and performed a poem called, "What Are You Drawing?" for Vogue/Vogue Italia (for London Fashion Week). Vogue is the top fashion magazine in the world (as per Wikipedia). It was the first time in Vogue's history that a poem was included in their publication (in addition to an online video - on Vogue Italia - of Roberts recited the poem). Again, this information was cut from the draft/page because, according to a certain editor, the references (Vogue, Vogue Italia and Conde Nast) weren't acceptable. I believe a portion of this section has been reinstated following its initial removal.

8- 'The Poet Says Be Hopeful' was written and performed in collaboration w/ the Evening Standard. The Evening Standard is the dominant local/regional evening paper for London (UK) and the surrounding area, with coverage of national and international news and City of London finance. This portion of the page ('The Poet Says Be Hopeful') has been cut down to two sentences, but it does remain.

9- 'While You Were Sleeping' also remains as part of the page. It was performed (by Roberts) as part of a 24-hour fundraising event to benefit Doctors Without Borders (Médecins sans frontières), Dubai Cares, the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement and other organisations supporting COVID-19 front-line workers.

10- 'The Night My Street Started Clapping' is an ode to the UK's National Health Services created in response to an ITV News London initiative which asked a few London-based poets to describe how their city is coping with the coronavirus crisis. ITV News has the second-largest television news audience in the United Kingdom, second only to BBC News. This portion of the page remains.

11- Roberts' spoken word poem, 'The Great Realisation', was recently performed by Ashley Banjo and his dance troupe, Diversity (on Britain's Got Talent). Diversity won the third season of Britain's Got Talent and Ashley Banjo is one of the show's judges. Diversity has performed for the Queen (at Buckingham Palace). For Ashley Banjo and Diversity to perform Roberts' 'The Great Realisation' (on Britain's Got Talent) is noteworthy, but again, I was barred from including this information.

12- Roberts is also one of the producers of the British feature film, 'Hilda' - which premiered at the Raindance Film Festival (London) in 2019. At Raindance, Roberts was nominated for Breakthrough Producer of the year, while the movie itself was an Official Selection of the British Independent Film Awards (BIFA). At the Moscow Film Festival (2020), the film won Best Director (Rishi Pelham) and Best Actress (Megan Purvis).

I could continue, but I think the above information forms a solid argument for why this page is, indeed, notable.

'''To anyone reviewing 'notability' re: this page, please consider the aforementioned information prior to making your decision. Thank you, in advance, for your just consideration.''' Ryan (Ryancoke2020 (talk) 15:38, 20 January 2021 (UTC))

Berchanhimez... You'd receive a better response if you didn't mock me, talk down to me, insult me and/or swear in conversing with me. There's no way you should be considered an independent 'referee' here. You need to take a log off the fire, my friend. Ryan (Ryancoke2020 (talk) 03:19, 21 January 2021 (UTC))
 * Delete there is not enough here to actual justify notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:58, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note to closing administrator 112 of the last 120 edits made on January 19th are delete votes in AFD.  I don't think they should be consider not-votes.  They re-use the same handful of justifications, which I think makes them actual votes, not not-votes.  Geo Swan (talk) 07:51, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - After checking the article's references I think I need to suggest nominator go re-read GNG. Geo Swan (talk) 08:07, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 *  delete - the Washington Post article contributes to notability, and the NZ herald is likely also contributory, but I haven't seen anything else that remotely comes close to contributing to independent coverage. Furthermore, at this point, even if more coverage of this one "viral" event was found, this is exactly the reason that WP:BLP1E exists. It's a weak not-vote from me because it may be that this person is notable, but the user posting wall of text here has done absolutely nothing to help that case, and has been hurting it by presenting literally dozens of unreliable sources/invalid arguments in this discussion. The user fighting for this article does not appear to have read any of the help they have been provided - and I also suspect based on their history that they have a heavy COI with this article - regardless of if they claim they do not. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:53, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I am also not opposed to move to userspace for continued work and/or for if/when the person becomes notable - I think this may very well be a good compromise here that allows the article to be worked on further and more references found. This is not a clear-cut case, and I don't fault the original AFC acceptor for doing so - as they said, it requires in depth analysis, whereas AFC acceptance is based on "won't be speedied and has at least a chance at AFD" - which this article clearly met at the time it was accepted. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:25, 22 January 2021 (UTC) - update now that the article creator and from what I can see the only person who would be interested in it has been blocked, I can only support userspace if someone else comes along to "take over" and wait for more sources, or deletion - I don't think punting to draft space where it'll be G13ed in 6 months is going to be useful. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 23:08, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm going to expand here, since it seems some people think that it's okay to just say "GNG applies" without referencing specific sources which establish GNG. As such, I'll explain in depth why I feel that, while many links to "sources" were provided, and many "accomplishments" listed, the bar of GNG is not met. Starting with the references in the article itself: 2 (Greenpeace) isn't a reliable source and actually appears to be just their blog that any employee can post on. 4 (Evening Standard) seems to be a cross between an interview and a "paid" advert - it includes an "exclusive poem" and a plea for submissions - and doesn't seem fully independent; furthermore I wouldn't be surprised if there was some behind the scenes payment for what is overall a short amount of coverage in general. Note that Evening Standard is yellow on WP:RSP - meaning there's no consensus as to its reliability, and that it should be taken with a grain of salt. 5 (Evening Standard 2) is yet another short piece which is merely a follow up to source 4 (first Evening Standard one) and does not add to notability. 6 (Conde Nast) is the very definition of "not significant coverage" - it is merely a passing mention. 7 (London Fashion Week) is a schedule release/short interview - which is by definition "routine coverage", not independent, and not significant for establishing notability. 8 is a repeat of 4. 9 (ITV) is an interview, and not independent/secondary for establishing notability. 10 (Kirkus) is a short book review which is standard for anything on that site - nowhere near significant. 11 (Raindance) is an interview with someone he worked with - not independent in the slightest - not to mention all he gets is a passing mention in that interview. Finally, 12 is merely a list of awards/names - not significant coverage as required by GNG.So, this leaves sources 1 and 3. Source 1 seems like the strongest help to notability - it's an interview, yes, but also includes 5 paragraphs of writing about the person before the interview starts. Source 3 is similar - it's an interview, but also includes some (but less than the WaPo source 1) original writing about him. So we're at one good quality source for notability, and another one that helps but I wouldn't consider it as good as the WaPo source. So let's see if there's anything useful that was posted in the walls of text above: there's a couple book reviews, book listings, and blog posts - but nothing that qualifies as significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. This is followed by, quite frankly, useless promotional material - it does not matter what he's done, how many languages his book is translated into, nor who performed his work. This sort of information cries out for not WP:GNG eligibility, but WP:NAUTHOR eligibility.So, now looking at NAUTHOR guidelines for notability, it's clear that Mr. Roberts has not "originat[ed] a significant new concept, theory, or technique", nor "created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews", nor has any of his works "a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums". For this reason, he does not meet WP:NAUTHOR and must meet the GNG. Unfortunately, there have only been one to two sources provided that would qualify as being notable via the GNG. Per WP:Multiple sources, a minimum of three "perfect" examples of the GNG requirement are required - and I personally agree with that essay. One to two examples that themselves are "half-interview" is nowhere near that bar of at least three. For this reason, this subject does not meet the GNG at this time. I ended up at weak delete because I believed that there may be more sources out there that would've helped GNG. But after I've looked into it, there don't seem to be. It seems that the user who created this article has been grasping at any straws possible to try and see what sticks - when unfortunately the subject is not notable at this time. Please feel free (anyone) to create a table if it helps - I have spent more time than I should be before bed on this long explanation already, but I hope it helps others see how just having a lot of links does not a GNG-passing subject make. Regards -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:45, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Berchanhimez said the following to me (see above): "...the user posting wall of text here has done absolutely nothing to help [their] case" ... Then, the user follows up with a massive wall of text. What is going on here?  I get admonished for this, but Berchanhimez can flaunt these 'rules' without a peep?  Just looking for some consistency, is all!  And, what about their personal attacks against me (see above)?  Again, not a word!  Ryan (Ryancoke2020 (talk) 02:31, 21 January 2021 (UTC))
 * The difference here is that my "wall of text" is in fact a detailed policy-based rebuttal and explanation. Your walls of text were not based in policy at all, and were not useful to discussion. I furthermore have not made personal attacks against you - you accusing me of doing so with no evidence is itself a personal attack and will get you sanctioned if you continue. You've been warned to stop this sort of behavior and yet you continue. Please read the guidelines and actually respond to my comments as to why this article doesn't meet GNG. You can't just say "it meets GNG" and it be true - otherwise, I'm a fucking pink elephant from Pluto. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:37, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Berchanhimez... You've attacked me personally, you're mocking me and, now, you're cursing at me. Keep it professional and control yourself, please.  I don't understand how you can possibly be deemed independent at this point in time.  Ryan (Ryancoke2020 (talk) 02:54, 21 January 2021 (UTC))
 * I have not mocked you, nor have I cursed at you. Using a curse word in a sentence does not mean I am "cursing at [you]", and cursing is not prohibited on Wikipedia. To your comment about professional, what would be professional would be for you to review the policies and actually respond to what others are saying to you - I'll note you still haven't commented on my actual argument, and how you still include "line break" HTML tags at the end of your posts after being advised that not only is it not necessary but breaks accessibility for those who use screen readers. It seems to me you refuse to click on and/or read/understand any links you've been given to Wikipedia's policies - and to that I say competence is required to edit Wikipedia, and if you refuse to display/show competence, you may be blocked from editing. I'll not respond to you further here if you refuse to comment on the article itself. Please indent your posts appropriately when responding to other editors - this is the third time I've had to fix this for you. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 03:07, 21 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep - Please refer to article's references in relation to GNG. Criteria for significant coverage, several secondary sources, reliable sourcing and independent sourcing are all met.  Ryan (Ryancoke2020 (talk) 23:19, 20 January 2021 (UTC)) — Ryancoke2020 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Note to closing administrator - Berchanhimez just admitted that the individual in question (Tomos Roberts) may be notable, but because I posted a wall of text, they're a weak not-vote. This is like a juror stating that the defendant is likely innocent, but their tattoos make them feel "icky", so they vote to convict.  This is simply an analogy.  This shouldn't be about me; it should be about whether the content is notable or not.  Berchanhimez has also conveniently ignored all the other relevant achievements by Mr. Roberts, and the associated references (outlined throughout the page itself and enumerated above).  Berchanhimez has based their decision on a personal dislike and they've made the mistake of admitting it in their comments (above).  Ryan (Ryancoke2020 (talk) 21:48, 20 January 2021 (UTC))
 * That is not at all what I said. Do not misrepresent what I said again. I said that while they may be notable, that cannot be determined based on your walls of text which do nothing to help. If they’re notable, provide the sources necessary to prove it instead of continuing to personally attack others. What you refuse to accept is that achievements themselves don’t matter one bit for notability here, so listing them does not do anything except waste time. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 21:55, 20 January 2021 (UTC)


 * It's precisely what you said! Nice try!  I took the time to read what you wrote and I'll be surprised if you don't edit your comment (I'll be watching).  You are choosing not to read the evidence above, more precisely #1-12.  Please take the time to read this information.  I even bolded the numbers so that they were more evident.  Additionally, notability can be found if you'd simply take the time to examine the links / references (a dozen of them) on the page in question.  Ryan (Ryancoke2020 (talk) 22:04, 20 January 2021 (UTC))


 * Comment. I make no assertion as to this person's notability or lack of it, but his faith - widely held at the time - in the ability of the pandemic, or rather the response to it, to change society for the better seems, despite Biden's victory, very far off - at least in Britain, especially in England - now.  Obviously notability is not temporary, but the bleaker feelings most people have now about the impact of the pandemic should be brought into consideration when considering the wilder claims made for him.  For a start, the poem appears to infer that in a notional post-pandemic world people would no longer be ordering things online on the same scale, something which as we all now know has in fact grown considerably since the pandemic started.  RobinCarmody (talk) 22:33, 20 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep - Agree w/ Geo Swan. Nominator should reacquaint self w/ GNG. Pls avoid impenetrable wall of text. (Dixierising (talk) 00:06, 21 January 2021 (UTC)) This is this editors first edit on Wikipedia, they have made no other edits to the encyclopedia. Netherzone (talk) 00:34, 21 January 2021 (UTC)  Blocked sock. Black Kite (talk) 21:31, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete I accepted this draft after User:possibly had made a large number of useful edits that had improved it to the point where I felt it might survive an WP:AFD, on closer inspection and taking on board the excellent analysis made by User:Berchanhimez it seems likely that the subject doesn't quite pass WP:GNG and this coupled with, bad faith, combative editing and now sock puppetry, leads me to delete. Theroadislong (talk) 09:48, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete:: Per Berchanhimez' analysis. I have also just reverted yet another personal attack and plan on doing the same with any future ones. This hostile nonsense has gone on long enough. Blablubbs | talk 19:21, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - I have given this AfD quite a bit of thought. I agree with Berchanhimez' thorough assessment of the sources. The article fails WP:CREATIVE on all four criteria. The original article was the most promotional arts-related article I have ever seen. There is an indication that this is a coordinated effort between the article creator and the poet's manager/PR agent therefore I believe, whether or not UPE took place, the intention of the piece was pure WP:PROMO puff. The essay on WP:NOT and in particular the section on WP:NOTADVERTISING section #5 are relevant. I also agree the poet does not meet GNG per Berchanhimez. From my own observations when trimming some of the promotional content, I saw that all of this artist's works are from the past year, and based on that, it is way WP:TOOSOON. Perhaps in a few years. Netherzone (talk) 23:25, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. Having given it further thoughts, I feel - along with what is clearly the consensus - that this article should go.  Its subject is of extremely limited notability and I don't think an article is at all necessary, and it is all too likely that promotionalism has been going on, against Wikipedia's spirit.  RobinCarmody (talk) 19:12, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep as easily meets WP:GNG with significant coverage in global (UK USA and NZ) reliable sources independent of the subject. I added two of the numerous NZ sources to the article just to give it some more evidence of coverage. If you think it needs more then I am happy to add them, but it does get a bit ludicrous NealeFamily (talk) 21:37, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Further comments - if GNG is met then criteria such as WP:CREATIVE does not need to be met as notability is established. Creative would only come into play if GNG was not met. NealeFamily (talk) 10:19, 23 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment article creator User:Ryancoke2020 has been blocked for sockpuppetry. Theroadislong (talk) 23:05, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Given that there is sockpuppetry in play, I just want to clarify that my keep was solely on the basis of the Wiki policy and not through any relationship with the articles author or the person it is about.NealeFamily (talk) 04:34, 23 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete If anything is notable here, it's the poem, not its author; the majority of the sources used in the article are about that rather than him. Black Kite (talk) 12:26, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Perhaps the poem/book and/or the author will become notable as time goes by, but I do not believe that point has been reached. The Washington Post article is the best, but it is a lead-in to an interview. The Kirkus coverage is a small point in favor of the notability of the children's book, but is not convincing because that publication exists to mass review books, about 10,000 per year. The essay WP:TOOSOON describes my thinking about this topic. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  01:58, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Question and comment I note that there is a general call for deletion, but the problem I have is that we appear to be deleting an article (albeit written in the main part by someone who is not familiar with Wikipedia editing and policy) about someone who from my viewpoint meets GNG. I think Netherzone's comments about the origin of the article are reasonably valid, but I am concerned that the origin is overshadowing and tainting our collective view. I don't disagree with the comments that the notability comes from a single poem by the author, but the fact that poem has been covered globally in the media surely takes it into the notable category surely? Will it be a one off wonder - who knows and in calling for deletion have several have suggested the article may fall into the WP:TOOSOON category because of this. But looking at WP:BLP1E, there seems to grounds to keep articles about people even if they gained notability through a single event depending on the spread and depth of there coverage. Alternatively, if delete is still the preference can I suggest a possible compromise in that there is an article titled COVID-19 pandemic in popular culture which may be a reasonable alternative site for a paragraph about Tomos Roberts and his poem. What are your thoughts? NealeFamily (talk) 02:49, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll offer my view here - interviews, in my book, don't contribute greatly to notability - and the only sources here which are reliable and significant enough to potentially contribute are both interviews (albeit with a somewhat decent amount of 'foreword'). Personally, the reason I do not consider interviews to be on the same standing as an article is that there is by definition conflict of interest whenever an interview is included - people are known to offer free or "exclusive" interviews in an attempt to get their covered more, and likewise, interviews (when agreed to) are an easy way to make a story for news. It takes a lot more work, effort, and standing to be able to write a full article on a subject (person, book, work, anything) - thus contributing more to notability than anything associated with an interview. I agree that BLP1E would likely make this article titled about the author, iff the work was independently notable, but I still don't consider either Mr. Roberts nor the work being covered to be notable. I don't particularly subscribe to "it being a one-hit wonder makes it too soon" - I just feel that two articles that are both based on interviews is not the bar for GNG - it shouldn't be, at least. The point of GNG is to enable us to curate and not be a "compendium of everything". I encourage you to read my in depth analysis of the sources above if you are curious more about my opinions on the sourcing. TLDR: most of it is "routine" and the only non-routine is borderline at best (the two interviews). That being said, I'm happy with the content being merged over to that article barring any reason it shouldn't be. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:55, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks User:Berchanhimez - that makes sense. I am therefore more inclined to agree with you. I'll take a further look at the cited sources over the next day or two and maybe revise my position based on your thoughtful comments. NealeFamily (talk) 05:00, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions NealeFamily (talk) 07:50, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I have included the disability project in this discussion as I am unsure whether or not overcoming severe dyslexia would have a bearing on Roberts notability as a poet and author NealeFamily (talk) 07:50, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment having quickly skimmed through the "walls of text" here, I get the impression that this might be a case of the poem being more notable than the poet. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:05, 26 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete I have reached the conclusion that Roberts is only known for a single poem at this stage, although I do applaud him for not allowing setbacks and dyslexia for standing in his way. I conclude that it is most likely a case of WP:TOOSOON as he appears very talented. I look forward to seeing how he progresses in the future. NealeFamily (talk) 08:12, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - might be a case of WP:TOOSOON, but currently does not meet either WP:NAUTHOR or WP:GNG.  Onel 5969  TT me 19:42, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note to closing admin This has been open for 12 days without being relisted, I think it can be closed now. Possibly (talk) 20:12, 30 January 2021 (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.