Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kirk Lynn: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Relisting discussion (XFDcloser) |
→Kirk Lynn: Closed as keep (XFDcloser) |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
<div class="boilerplate afd vfd xfd-closed archived mw-archivedtalk" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;"> |
|||
| ⚫ | |||
:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's [[Help:Using talk pages|talk page]] or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page.'' |
|||
{{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|B}} |
|||
<!--Template:Afd top |
|||
Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links to create a new discussion page using the name format of [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PAGENAME (2nd nomination)]]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. --> |
|||
The result was '''keep'''__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Weak Keeps and Weakish Delete but reviews tilt it over to Keep. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 23:20, 21 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
| ⚫ | |||
<noinclude>{{AFD help}}</noinclude> |
<noinclude>{{AFD help}}</noinclude> |
||
:{{la|1=Kirk Lynn}} – (<includeonly>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kirk Lynn|View AfD]]</includeonly><noinclude>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 16#{{anchorencode:Kirk Lynn}}|View log]]</noinclude> | [[Special:Diff/1218698465/cur|edits since nomination]]) |
:{{la|1=Kirk Lynn}} – (<includeonly>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kirk Lynn|View AfD]]</includeonly><noinclude>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 16#{{anchorencode:Kirk Lynn}}|View log]]</noinclude> | [[Special:Diff/1218698465/cur|edits since nomination]]) |
||
| Line 10: | Line 15: | ||
: '''Keep''' here, but a weak one, following some rework. I've added some sources and reworked the article. I think there is a narrow claim to notability, his first book seems to have received a fair amount of coverage in some reliable sources (and been made into a film, unfortunately most of the coverage of that seems to be focused on the actor, not the film, so I've left that out), as well as some of his play work. Others may disagree, but I think he's just over the line. [[User:Mdann52|Mdann52]] ([[User talk:Mdann52|talk]]) 12:31, 10 June 2024 (UTC) |
: '''Keep''' here, but a weak one, following some rework. I've added some sources and reworked the article. I think there is a narrow claim to notability, his first book seems to have received a fair amount of coverage in some reliable sources (and been made into a film, unfortunately most of the coverage of that seems to be focused on the actor, not the film, so I've left that out), as well as some of his play work. Others may disagree, but I think he's just over the line. [[User:Mdann52|Mdann52]] ([[User talk:Mdann52|talk]]) 12:31, 10 June 2024 (UTC) |
||
*'''Weak-ish delete''' I think it's close but not quite GNG. He has written one book that was reviewed in major ''local'' newspapers. He has written and adapted plays in that same locality. In 2020 his book was adapted to the [https://deadline.com/2020/02/stranger-things-finn-wolfhard-rules-for-werewolves-movie-1202870812/#! film] as a short. (I don't find much about it [https://www.imdb.com/title/tt11813614/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_0_tt_8_nm_0_q_rules%2520for%2520were at IMDB]) That's about it. At this point I think he is a fish in a pond, but not beyond it. [[User:Lamona|Lamona]] ([[User talk:Lamona|talk]]) 04:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC) |
*'''Weak-ish delete''' I think it's close but not quite GNG. He has written one book that was reviewed in major ''local'' newspapers. He has written and adapted plays in that same locality. In 2020 his book was adapted to the [https://deadline.com/2020/02/stranger-things-finn-wolfhard-rules-for-werewolves-movie-1202870812/#! film] as a short. (I don't find much about it [https://www.imdb.com/title/tt11813614/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_0_tt_8_nm_0_q_rules%2520for%2520were at IMDB]) That's about it. At this point I think he is a fish in a pond, but not beyond it. [[User:Lamona|Lamona]] ([[User talk:Lamona|talk]]) 04:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC) |
||
:<p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"><span style="color: #FF6600;">'''{{resize|91%|[[Wikipedia:Deletion process#Relisting discussions|Relisted]] to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}'''</span><br /><small>Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 21:32, 16 June 2024 (UTC)</small><!-- from Template:XfD relist -- |
:<p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"><span style="color: #FF6600;">'''{{resize|91%|[[Wikipedia:Deletion process#Relisting discussions|Relisted]] to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}'''</span><br /><small>Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 21:32, 16 June 2024 (UTC)</small><!-- from Template:XfD relist --></p> |
||
* '''Keep''': The Guardian review and [https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/kirk-lynn/rules-for-werewolves/], Kirkus reviews. We should have enough for notability. [[User:Oaktree b|Oaktree b]] ([[User talk:Oaktree b|talk]]) 00:13, 17 June 2024 (UTC) <!--VCB Oaktree b--> |
|||
* '''Weak keep'''. The Guardian being on another continent counters the argument about local press, though I did find yet another local review: https://www.austinchronicle.com/arts/2015-12-11/rules-for-werewolves/ . Furthermore, [https://longreads.com/2015/12/15/longreads-best-of-2015-under-recognized-books/ the writeup] in a year-end list by [[Anna Wiener]] at [[Longreads]] seems like editorial content. [https://www.npr.org/podcasts/417235728/the-write-up?ft=nprml&f=947337057 Would this summary] at NPR count as secondary comment? [https://web.archive.org/web/20151002152949/http://www.mensjournal.com/gear/outdoor/the-7-best-books-of-october-20151001 This] is more passing than significant coverage. I would not be opposed to transform this into an article about the book, where the film also would be covered. [[User:Geschichte|Geschichte]] ([[User talk:Geschichte|talk]]) 09:20, 17 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
{{clear}} |
|||
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's [[Help:Talk pages|talk page]] or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page.''<!--Template:Afd bottom--></div> |
|||
Latest revision as of 23:20, 21 June 2024
- 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. Weak Keeps and Weakish Delete but reviews tilt it over to Keep. Liz Read! Talk! 23:20, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Kirk Lynn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This subject appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR. JFHJr (㊟) 22:46, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, and United States of America. JFHJr (㊟) 22:46, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Theatre and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:27, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep here, but a weak one, following some rework. I've added some sources and reworked the article. I think there is a narrow claim to notability, his first book seems to have received a fair amount of coverage in some reliable sources (and been made into a film, unfortunately most of the coverage of that seems to be focused on the actor, not the film, so I've left that out), as well as some of his play work. Others may disagree, but I think he's just over the line. Mdann52 (talk) 12:31, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- Weak-ish delete I think it's close but not quite GNG. He has written one book that was reviewed in major local newspapers. He has written and adapted plays in that same locality. In 2020 his book was adapted to the film as a short. (I don't find much about it at IMDB) That's about it. At this point I think he is a fish in a pond, but not beyond it. Lamona (talk) 04:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:32, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: The Guardian review and [1], Kirkus reviews. We should have enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:13, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- Weak keep. The Guardian being on another continent counters the argument about local press, though I did find yet another local review: https://www.austinchronicle.com/arts/2015-12-11/rules-for-werewolves/ . Furthermore, the writeup in a year-end list by Anna Wiener at Longreads seems like editorial content. Would this summary at NPR count as secondary comment? This is more passing than significant coverage. I would not be opposed to transform this into an article about the book, where the film also would be covered. Geschichte (talk) 09:20, 17 June 2024 (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.