Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ian Parks

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 keep. Tone 20:30, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Parks

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I cannot find decent coverage of this poet. There is quite a lot in various blogs, and I have found and added two interviews, but nothing that meets notability requirements. Tacyarg (talk) 23:50, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 23:50, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 23:50, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 23:50, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 23:50, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 23:50, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is worded very promotionally, in particular the obviously cherry-picked quotes in the "reception" section, so if it is kept it needs to have a good going over for neutrality. I prefer not to spend my time looking for sources when an article is so blatantly promotional. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:23, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough independent sourcing to show that he is a notable poet.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:55, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT, WP:NOT, and WP:NOTESSAY. It is written in the form of a witty review or essay. I'm not sure he;s notable anyway, based on the lack of WP:SIGCOV. Bearian (talk) 01:51, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Substantial coverage in reliable sources exists: this article in English Studies discusses his work in some depth, as does this recent doctoral thesis. The article also cites a review in Acumen – the review doesn't seem to be available online, but we don't require sources to be. The interview in Dream Catcher in the external links section is also quite a good source – I know some editors don't think interviews should contribute to establishing notability, but typically established publications don't interview just anybody. The current state of the article is indeed poor, but the list of works and the useful references strongly suggest WP:TNT isn't the right approach. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:10, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:33, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:18, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Arms & Hearts; with the back-flap blurbs removed, it reads better, and I think this is a case where the interviews are evidence of the world paying attention, so they count towards wiki-notability. XOR'easter (talk) 17:17, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I did a little searching (<5mins) and found these: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. A bit more time in JSTOR, Project Muse etc, would (probably) reveal more. He's not famous but I believe he is notable. Agree with Phil Bridger on promo style problem; it reads like a press release. The article could defintely use work. // Timothy :: talk 23:49, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.