Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Graham Langley

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. Although mindfull of the argument presented by the sole 'keep', the comments in response to that, along with the 'deletes' show that the consensus is to delete -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Langley

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

Contested PROD. Fails WP:CREATIVE - no reliable third-party sourced material. The one quotation from The Times is a bit dubious (see the article history - it apparently doesn't exist in the on-line archives of that newspaper, which now are unfortunately behind a paywall), and, in any case, seems just to be from a book review. All the other references are from events that Mr Langley has either organized himself, or where he's just giving a presentation at a conference. There are no indications that any of his books have won awards or achieved significant sales, and no evidence of other serious critical attention. The tone of the article is also in violation of WP:PEACOCK, which might lead one to suspect that Mr Langley himself is responsible for most of the text. If the article is kept, it'll need to be toned down a great deal. Delete as nominator. Tevildo (talk) 16:47, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unambiguous promotion.--Talain (talk) 21:45, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the nominator, and there's no reasonable doubt that this is self-promotion. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:43, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per this individual easily meeting WP:GNG as a widely notable "storyteller" with coverage in multiple reliable sources over a period of many years.[1] When ample sources toward notability exist, it becomes time to then address concerns with article style and tone through regular editing... but not through deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:51, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. WP:CREATIVE sets the bar much higher than WP:GNG, as any garage band can get a couple of gig reviews in their local paper and bring themselves within the literal terms of WP:GNG - and a couple of gig reviews in local papers is all that the above-linked Google search brings up. We need attention from mainstream literary/theatrical critics (whichever is more appropriate for a "professional storyteller"). My opinion is unchanged. Tevildo (talk) 18:32, 18 September 2010 (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.