Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Christofi

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 (non-admin closure).—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 08:46, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Christofi

[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)

apparently not yet notable: the only reviews cited are inclusion of the books in group reviews. Even the reviews call him a beginner. DGG ( talk ) 23:15, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete After reading back through the sources and seeing if I could find any more, I'm going to agree with you on the deletion. It's very possible he'll be notable in the future, but I think I probably made the wrong move trying to argue for his notability at the present time. If anyone else can prove his notability, however, that'd be good.PotentPotables ( talk ) 00:40, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looking at what others have said, I'm changing my stance to keep. (I'm not 100% certain on what all the notability things actually mean, but I thought I should probably offer my opinion on this article after creating it.) Seems notable enough to me, with my understanding PotentPotables ( talk ) 23:12, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:36, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:36, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I find this baffling. We don't judge notability solely by what is cited in an article. Both his books have received plenty of coverage in reliable sources: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], and the several other group reviews are further coverage that adds to his notability. --Michig (talk) 07:37, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Meets WP:NAUTHOR point #3, per the subject's work having received "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews", as evidenced by the sources denoted by Michig as well as those available in searches. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:49, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes nauthor with the refs above. Szzuk (talk) 18:00, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per WP:NAUTHOR. A simple search would reveal that his books have been reviewed in publication such as Times [7], Guardian [8] and others. Hzh (talk) 18:18, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.